The Petitioner, a civil engineer with over ten years of experience, planned to establish a dredging business providing dredging equipment for hire and technical/logistical support to individuals and organizations, and to hire two employees.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that his specific proposed endeavor is of national importance because he has not put forth evidence of how exactly his endeavor will provide solutions that will have broader implications beyond his specific company and its clients.”

“The evidence does not show how the Petitioner's plan to hire two workers is significant or how his endeavor will affect more than himself, his two employees, and any potential customers.”

“The Petitioner has not put forth a business plan or demonstrated that he has access to investments to seed his proposed endeavor.”

“Thus, the Petitioner's argument that his proposed endeavor would reduce an asserted shortage of civil engineers in the United States does not address of the substance of Dhanasar's first prong”

“While the Petitioner's endeavor of dredging as detailed in his RFE response directly relates to the STEM field, the evidence submitted is insufficient to demonstrate that his specific proposed endeavor has sufficiently broad potential implications to reach national importance.”

“Assuming that the articles are factually correct, they are general articles.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not put forth a business plan or demonstrated that he has access to investments to seed his proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “Assuming that the articles are factually correct, they are general articles.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• resume experience · credited

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
• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO reversed the Director's threshold EB-2 determination, finding the Petitioner's Russian 'diplom spetsialista' equivalent to a U.S. master's degree using AACRAO EDGE, but still dismissed the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance grounds; noted an unresolved inconsistency regarding a submitted job offer for an unrelated position (production supervisor for a 'Tsunami Surveillance System') that did not appear to relate to the proposed dredging endeavor.

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 Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of Y-B-
• Section 291 of the Act

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