The Petitioner, a Brazilian general operations manager in freight transport and logistics, sought to continue that work in the U.S. through a Florida logistics company he founded, providing transportation management, warehousing, and supply-chain consulting to companies trading domestically and between the U.S. and Brazil.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“such evidence does not establish how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader field or otherwise establish its national importance.”

“The record does not support that the creation of eight additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

“He did not provide specific plans, projections of indirect economic benefits, or other sufficient evidence to explain how his specific company activities will have broader implications in the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not provide specific plans, projections of indirect economic benefits, or other sufficient evidence to explain how his specific company activities will have broader implications”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not contain sufficient detail or explanation to establish his recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”

  AAO decision text
• awards · discounted

  “there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that he received the awards as recognition for his achievements and significant contributions”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the record does not show that the Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a United States bachelor's degree”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

• 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

Notable

Director had deemed the post-filing business plan 'inadmissible' under Matter of Izummi, but the AAO nonetheless considered it because the underlying company was established before filing; the AAO ultimately still found the plan's national-importance showing insufficient.

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 Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

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