The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, planned to continue operating and managing several businesses, including a holding company for joint real estate investments, aiming to improve affordable housing access, attract foreign investment, create jobs, and generate tax revenue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence ofrecord does not convey an understanding of how the [P]etitioner's proposed employment activities stand to have a broader impact on his field.”

“the [P]etitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has implications beyond his prospective employer (or self-owned company), his business partners, alliances, and/or clients/customers, co-workers or workplace”

“the [P]etitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects.”

“it would not provide sufficient information to establish whether the proposed endeavor would have significant positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “A petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “The bank statements and tax returns dated after the petition filing date also may not establish eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the articles submitted on appeal may not establish eligibility because they are dated after the petition filing date”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the advisory council invitation letter cannot establish eligibility because it is dated after the petition filing date.”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

Notable

The AAO rejected virtually all appellate evidence (business plan, bank statements, tax returns, articles, advisory council letter) solely because they postdated the filing date under Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., then separately noted the business plan would fail on the merits even if timely, due to unidentifiable job-creation figures across overlapping construction projects.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 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