The Petitioner sought to establish a California company distributing fruits, vegetables, and eventually other food products (e.g., dairy, cold meats) to retailers, depots, and consumers, serving as its General or Regional Manager.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“The Petitioner has not shown how the food distribution services he intends to provide would have broader implications in the field of fruit and vegetable distribution.”

“these statements are not supported by financial projections.”

“The record lacks evidence that the proposed endeavor's future staffing levels and business activity would provide substantial economic benefits in California or in the United States”

“pursuing employment or operating a business in an area that is adjacent to or aligned with the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “these statements are not supported by financial projections.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the individual will work”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the author does not indicate how the Petitioner's business plan supports a determination that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The Petitioner argued that his endeavor aligned with national initiatives on healthy consumption and food distribution (e.g., CDC obesity reports, USDA food-system reports); the AAO rejected this as mere industry/field adjacency rather than evidence of the specific endeavor's national importance. The AAO declined to reach prong 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers