The Petitioner proposed to operate a water rescue training facility/business in the United States providing scuba diving and water rescue instruction, particularly to members of law enforcement.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Director explained that the Petitioner did not describe his endeavor with detail sufficient to differentiate it from any other occupation.”

“The Director further explained that the Petitioner did not establish how his endeavor would impact the industry or field more broadly, nor did he demonstrate that the endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation.”

“The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “did not describe his endeavor with detail sufficient to differentiate it from any other occupation”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted that the Petitioner's failure to address the Director's specific conclusions was 'alone... grounds for summary dismissal' under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), but nonetheless proceeded to substantively affirm the Director's prong-one national importance finding via an adopt-and-affirm approach (citing Matter of Burbano) before dismissing the appeal; EB-2 classification and prongs two and three were expressly reserved as unnecessary to the disposition.

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
• Chen v. INS
• 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