The Petitioner proposed to work as a business and financial management consultant, later refined to establishing a consulting firm in Massachusetts offering business process outsourcing, financial planning, and investment advisory services to small- and mid-sized businesses and startups.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not provide further detail on the specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that he would focus on”

“The record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's specific work for his prospective clients stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests”

“he has not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation”

“Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the Petitioner's company to operate at all, it is not evident that the company will generate revenue”

“Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience do not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the Petitioner's company to operate at all”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

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

Notable

Petitioner raised a preliminary procedural argument that the Director had applied a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' criminal standard rather than preponderance of the evidence; AAO rejected this as unsupported and insufficiently specific under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v). AAO also noted the Director's RFE had raised prong two and three issues, but declined to reach them given the dispositive prong-one finding.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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