The Petitioner, an aquacultural engineer, planned to establish a consulting company in Florida providing technical consulting services to commercial aquaculture farms and industries in several U.S. states, including managing fish/shrimp farming production processes and hiring in-house employees.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clients to impact the aquaculture industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“it does not illustrate how the Petitioner's particular endeavor to provide consulting services within the industry is of national importance or demonstrate that his consultancy company will impact the United States at a national level.”

“the business plan's projections are not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted.”

“We note that the suggestion that labor certification requirements should be waived due to a talent shortage is not persuasive, as the purpose of the labor certification process is to identify jobs where there are no qualified, willing, and available U.S. workers.”

“the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's role as an aquacultural engineering consultant would impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his employees and to the clients of his company.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan's projections are not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates forecasted”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “We note that the suggestion that labor certification requirements should be waived due to a talent shortage is not persuasive”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “While this evidence provides insight into the aquaculture industry, it does not illustrate how the Petitioner's particular endeavor... is of national importance”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO explicitly rejects a labor-shortage argument raised in a recommendation letter, framing it as contrary to the purpose of labor certification, and declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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