The Petitioner proposed to continue his career as a financial consultant, forming and serving as CEO of his own financial consulting firm providing financial training, education, and consulting services to U.S. companies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the impact of the proposed endeavor would go beyond benefitting the clients that engage the Petitioner' s company”

“the Petitioner did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated, nor did it elaborate on the staffing projections”

“these vague claims about the endeavor's "multiple positive effects on the U.S . marketplace" offer no meaningful understanding as to how our nation stands to benefit”

“the record does not demonstrate that the creation of 31 additional jobs will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element”

“the Petitioner in this matter has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “consideration of the business plan would not result in a favorable determination”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letter does not adequately explain, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”

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

Notable

AAO explicitly disagreed with the Director's own reasoning, finding the endeavor DID have substantial merit even though the Director had contradicted itself on that point; nonetheless the appeal was dismissed on national importance grounds. AAO also faulted the Petitioner for materially changing the description of his role (from service-provider to CEO/manager) after filing, citing Matter of Izummi's bar on material changes.

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)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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