The Petitioner sought to launch and operate a maritime training academy in Florida providing STCW and related certification courses for cruise and yacht crew members.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish its national importance”

“a nexus between this national shortage and his proposed endeavor focused on maritime training does not alone demonstrate that it is of national level importance”

“The Petitioner proposed to operate one training academy in the Florida area and did not specify how many individuals his business would train”

“In sum, the Petitioner submitted a vague array of claimed maritime training services and potential prospective national impacts”

“he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work, but the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed maritime academy would have substantial positive economic impacts beyond the community”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the provided reference letters discussed the Petitioner's work ethic and professionalism ... did not specifically discuss his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the submitted articles [provided] general information about the industry”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not submit information or evidence related to the level of investment in his proposed training academy”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that economic/employment projections should only be considered under prong 2 (well-positioned), holding the totality of evidence, including business plan specifics, is relevant to national importance under prong 1. Decision also cites Flores v. Garland in a footnote regarding the discretionary nature of NIW grants.

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)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Ho
• 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