The Petitioner, a construction manager originally, initially proposed to run his own Florida-based construction project management company serving the telecommunications infrastructure sector, but later shifted his proposed endeavor to employment first as a Project Coordinator and then as a Construction Supervisor for other telecommunications companies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not presented a consistent proposed endeavor, and has not met his burden of proof to establish that the proposed endeavor meets the "national importance" element”

“Statistics showing that the collective efforts of workers in the Petitioner's occupation serve the national interest do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“does not explain how the scale of these benefits will reach the level of national importance”

“these aggregate figures do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor itself has national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not explain how the scale of these benefits will reach the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these aggregate figures do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor itself has national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “This change in circumstances after the Petitioner filed the petition cannot establish eligibility if the Petitioner did not already meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to requirements”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Information about size does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's work there”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO focused heavily on the Petitioner's shifting and inconsistent proposed endeavor (own company vs. two successive employers) as fatal to establishing national importance, expressly declining to reach prongs two and three or the underlying EB-2 eligibility question. The decision relies on Matter of Izummi to reject post-filing changes in employment as a basis for eligibility.

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 Izummi
• 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