The Petitioner sought to direct and operate a bakery/pastry company in Florida offering baked goods and a technology platform for a personalized, health-focused customer experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“Rather than provide any specific, corroborated figures, she offered speculative projections.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her co-workers, employees, and customers to impact the bakery industry more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not met her burden to show that her bakery endeavor wi 11 have broader implications on a national level”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Rather than provide any specific, corroborated figures, she offered speculative projections.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted
• other · discounted

  “she has not met her burden to show that her bakery endeavor wi 11 have broader implications on a national level”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “Without a minimum of a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent, the Petitioner cannot qualify as an advanced degree professional”

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

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on advanced-degree eligibility (finding no qualifying degree at all, only short training courses), then reserved the exceptional-ability classification question and prongs 2/3 of Dhanasar, resting the dismissal entirely on prong 1's national importance failure.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
• Chen v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• 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