The Petitioner, a distance education specialist, proposed to establish a Florida-based consulting firm providing distance-education consulting and e-learning customization services to corporations, schools, universities, and government agencies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient independent and objective evidence to substantiate them”

“it is not apparent how this impact rises to the level of national importance”

“letter does not contain detailed and verifiable examples of how the Petitioner impacted students and educators”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“her education, experience, skills, and knowledge alone do not sufficiently establish that she is well-positioned to advance the endeavor”

“the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's success in related or similar efforts”

“it is not apparent, for example, how many employees she will need in her business”

“there is little evidence of interest in the proposed endeavor from potential customers, users, or investors”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “neither the author nor the Petitioner provided independent and objective evidence of increased student achievement”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she possesses knowledge or skills within the U.S. education system”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · credited
• business plan · discounted

  “it is not apparent, for example, how many employees she will need in her business”

  AAO decision text
• awards · discounted

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's finding of national importance (Director had found it met) but dismissed on other grounds; AAO drew a distinction between impact achieved while employed by a university versus impact achievable through the Petitioner's own consulting business without similar institutional resources.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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