The Petitioner sought to establish a digital marketing and advertising services firm in New Jersey offering branding, digital marketing, and design services, plus a youth vocational/mentorship program aimed at preventing juvenile delinquency.

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”

“he did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of his figures”

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

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

“the economic impact from this potential hiring is too amorphous to be considered of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”

“The associate professor, however, does not address the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein, its prospective substantial economic impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of his figures”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The associate professor, however, does not address the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the letters do not address the company's projected expansion activities in any detail or otherwise corroborate...job creation projections”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · 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 client”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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

AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that SCOPS's single erroneous reference to 'cybersecurity' materially distorted its national-importance analysis, finding the error harmless. AAO also rejected the HUBZone-location argument as insufficient to establish substantial positive economic effects absent proof of actual HUBZone certification. A footnote notes SCOPS had found prong two met but provided no analysis, though AAO declined to reach any remaining prongs.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• 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