The Petitioner sought to establish and serve as CFO of a real estate development company in Georgia that would build residential and commercial units, aiming to improve affordable housing access.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not detailed how his single real estate development company would specifically impact purported nationwide shortages in housing and the homelessness crises”

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

“a single real estate development business that would operate as one of tens of thousands in the United States”

“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis”

“The letter therefore is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work.”

“the letters of recommendation add little probative value in establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “add little probative value in establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's education, skills, and experience 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted the Petitioner failed to identify specific errors in SCOPS' analysis on appeal, presenting only general disagreement, though it nonetheless reviewed the full record; the appeal was dismissed solely on prong one, with prongs two and three expressly reserved under Bagamasbad.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• 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