The Petitioner, a pharmaceutical chemist with about 22 years of industry experience, proposed to work in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry before launching his own pharmaceutical consulting firm offering research, production, quality control, and regulatory-compliance services to medium and large industry clients.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the shortage of pharmacists and pharmaceutical workers in the United States does not render the Petitioner's potential employment nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“it does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor's future staffing and business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits to South Florida or the United States”

“The professional plan, however, is devoid of a timeline for opening his company and does not document how his proposed activities would constitute an advancement”

“none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not offer an analytical roadmap that lays out the basis for the opinion that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar's first prong”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “devoid of a timeline for opening his company and does not document how his proposed activities would constitute an advancement”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the shortage of pharmacists and pharmaceutical workers in the United States does not render the Petitioner's potential employment nationally important”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  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
• 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

AAO expressly rejected the argument that a shortage of pharmaceutical workers establishes national importance, noting such shortages are addressed through the DOL labor certification process itself. AAO also declined to give weight to a prior non-precedent decision cited by Petitioner involving a similar consulting-firm endeavor, noting non-precedent decisions do not bind future adjudications.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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