The Petitioner sought to run a company providing non-legal immigration form preparation and translation assistance, primarily to Spanish-speaking recent immigrants, with plans to hire staff and partner with nonprofits and other service providers.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”

“the record lacked sufficient evidence to show that the proposed endeavor would prospectively generate benefits that expand beyond the Petitioner's customers to have a national impact.”

“the Director noted the staffing and revenue projections in the business plan, but that they were not supported with details showing their basis or an explanation as to how they would be realized.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “were not supported with details showing their basis or an explanation as to how they would be realized”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Director stated that the relevant issue is not the importance of the profession rather it is the proposed endeavor and its impact on the broader field”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “We are not obligated to consider the new evidence for the first time on appeal.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

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

Notable

The AAO declined to consider substantial new evidence submitted on appeal (business expansion plans, tax returns, sales forecasts, job training proposal) because the Petitioner had been placed on notice via RFE and given a prior opportunity to submit it, citing Matter of Soriano; AAO also expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than independently restating the analysis in full.

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
• Chen v. INS
• 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