The Petitioner sought to manage a business consultancy in the United States, initially described as auditing/advising multinational companies doing business in Brazil, later reframed on RFE response as a financial consulting firm operating in HUBZone-designated areas of Florida and Georgia.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not provided a consistent account ofthe nature of her endeavor or supported her claims with sufficient relevant, probative evidence”

“the Petitioner has not established how her endeavor's impact would extend beyond her business's clients.”

“The record does not establish that the proposed endeavor's economic impact would rise to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's endeavor, in and of itself, would resolve this shortage or impact it on a national level.”

“A business plan that was created after the time of filing and which is not supported by relevant, probative, and credible evidence does not establish eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “A business plan that was created after the time of filing and which is not supported by relevant, probative, and credible evidence does not establish eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “Where there are contradictions in the evidence, a petitioner must resolve these contradictions with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “these factors go towards the second prong of the Dhanasar test... They do not establish that her endeavor, in and of itself, is likely to have substantial economic benefits”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The duties of this position were not specified, and there was also no indication that... Company is a multinational company seeking to do business in Brazil.”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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 applies the material-change doctrine (Izummi/Katigbak) to reject post-RFE assertions about the Petitioner's company, employment plans, and HUBZone operations because they were not disclosed at filing, treating them as impermissible amendments to the endeavor rather than mere clarifications.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution