The Petitioner proposed opening a shooting academy in Florida offering firearm safety and shooting training, classrooms, a gun store, and school gun-safety presentations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence is insufficient to establish that the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor . . . stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

“It does not appear that the proposed endeavor has the potential to generate a significant number ofjobs for U.S. workers.”

“The Petitioner's proposed endeavor of operating a business that sells firearms and related equipment, trains customers to use those firearms, and provides facilities for customers to use those firearms appears to benefit the Petitioner, as the owner of the business, and the business's customers.”

“[t]he United States has an intrinsic national interest in making sure small businesses succeed.”

“the record does not elaborate on this aspect of the proposed endeavor with information-such as the schools at which the presentations would be performed, the number of students enrolled”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have the type of "national or even global implications"”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “that generalized information is inapposite to determining whether the specific, proposed endeavor may have national importance.”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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 flagged an unresolved internal inconsistency in the Director's threshold EB-2 analysis (NOID found advanced-degree eligibility met, but denial found exceptional-ability criteria not met) but declined to resolve it, reserving judgment because the waiver failed on prong 1 alone.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• 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