The Petitioner, an experienced business consultant, proposed to operate a U.S. consulting business providing services to rural tourism development projects, having formed a U.S. LLC for this purpose.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The petitioner has not established that their proposed work has implications beyond their current company (or any prospective employers), businesses partners, alliances, and/or unidentified clients at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their endeavor.”

“Thus, the study indicates that the Petitioner's business would constitute only a tiny fraction of the U.S. tourism industry and the national economy.”

“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that his proposed consultancy would affect the national economy or the U.S. tourism industry "more broadly."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · credited
• degree · credited
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the consulting agreement between the Petitioner and the Regional Center, however, postdates the petition's filing.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the study indicates that the Petitioner's business would constitute only a tiny fraction of the U.S. tourism industry and the national economy.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO reversed the Director's threshold EB-2 finding, holding the Petitioner did establish advanced-degree eligibility (the Director had overlooked a compliant employment letter), yet still dismissed the appeal solely on national importance grounds, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

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