The Petitioner proposed to work as a consultant through his own company providing tax preparation, tax and financial planning, bookkeeping, business formation, public accounting, auditing, forensics, and related services, with plans to expand offices and incorporate generative AI into tax technology.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the impact of the Petitioner's endeavor did not extend beyond his current and future clients”

“the letters do not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance because they only highlight that the endeavor's impact is to the individual clients and companies that hire the Petitioner”

“the U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses labor shortages through its labor certification process”

“The Petitioner has not established his endeavor has met this standard”

“the Petitioner's evidence does not establish his endeavor will reduce fraud or address these matters at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters do not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance because they only highlight that the endeavor's impact is to the individual clients”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not established his endeavor has met this standard.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the scope of the proposed endeavor's impact is limited to its clients”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “requires a petitioner to establish their eligibility for a benefit at the time of filing the benefit request”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO rejected six letters of intent submitted only on appeal/RFE response as untimely under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1), then separately addressed their merits anyway. The Petitioner raised a 'cumulative evidence' argument citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, which the AAO rejected by pointing to the Director's Chawathe-based individualized weighing. The decision explicitly reserved review of the Director's prong two finding (which had favored the Petitioner) and prong three, deciding solely on prong one.

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. 103.3
• Chen v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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