The Petitioner sought to work as an entrepreneur developing and expanding his own business, variously described as a management consulting firm advising on business development and, elsewhere in the record, as a property management and rental services company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”

“The record does not nonetheless support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions.”

“The author claims that the Petitioner's expertise in the field is of substantial merit and national importance and states that the Petitioner will no doubt work in the United States”

“The Petitioner's various descriptions of his proposed endeavor raise doubts about the sufficiency of the submitted evidence in demonstrating the national importance”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner's appellate submission introduces inconsistency into the record, which undermines his claim.”

  AAO decision text

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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

The Petitioner offered inconsistent descriptions of the proposed endeavor across the record (management consulting firm vs. property management/rental company), which the AAO treated as undermining credibility and sufficiency of the national importance claim.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• 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