The Petitioner sought to operate a business described as a strategic initiative to bridge educational and cultural exchanges between Brazilian and American students, drawing on his experience in business administration and pedagogy.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor in order to establish eligibility under the first prong”

“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate his assertions that the prospective impact of running a business to bridge cultural and educational exchanges between the United States and Brazil rises to the level of national importance.”

“his assertions with respect to the shortage of education professionals in the United States, like him, does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important”

“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

“the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the importance of education, immigration, and entrepreneurism”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The Petitioner does not explain what specific content SCOPS failed to consider or how the record contains evidence that overcomes SCOPS' analysis”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the 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
• 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 Petitioner attempted a novel argument tying national importance to operating in an SBA HUBZone (underutilized business zone), which the AAO rejected because he had not shown his business qualified for HUBZone certification and the connection to Dhanasar's 'economically depressed area' language was too amorphous.

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. 103.5
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of E-M-
• 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