The Petitioner sought to be CEO of his own architectural/construction-management consulting firm in New Jersey, advising U.S. companies on reducing building and remodeling costs and targeting economically distressed areas.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner has not provided independent and objective support for such claims.”

“the business plan by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“they do not demonstrate that his endeavor or his methodologies will impact more than just the clients that he will serve, rising to the national importance contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“the Petitioner has not provided independently corroborating evidence to substantiate that his company would hire significant population in the economically depressed areas of New Jersey”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these documents pertain to the second prong of Dhanasar... and do not support the claims of the endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “only address his past accomplishments as an architect and an entrepreneur, but they do not demonstrate national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's claim of national importance largely relies on the industry reports and articles previously submitted”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it does not provide any persuasive and relevant details about the Petitioner's endeavor or its specific impact”

  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
• 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

Petitioner raised due-process and 'novel standard' arguments against the Director's RFE-based denial and objected that Director skipped prongs 2-3; AAO rejected constitutional/procedural arguments citing lack of jurisdiction and noted RFE properly identified deficiencies. AAO itself likewise declined to reach prongs 2-3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.

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)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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