The Petitioner proposed to operate his own business consulting firm in Florida, providing strategy, financial, marketing, and purchasing advisory services primarily to small and medium-sized businesses, especially Latin American clients investing in the U.S.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the proposed endeavor does not appear to operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”

“Although the proposed endeavor may benefit the client companies that engage the Petitioner for his services, the record does not sufficiently show that such benefits would rise to the level of national importance”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“the letters restate claims the Petitioner already made concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the claimed impact appears to be localized to the particular project or company that hired the Petitioner”

“he has not demonstrated how his proposed endeavor is better, different, or costs less than other business consulting services already available in the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Based upon the year one to five growth projections listed in the business plan, we conclude that the proposed endeavor does not appear to operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters restate claims the Petitioner already made concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “such evidence does not necessarily establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO noted an inconsistency in the Petitioner's job title across filings (business consultant vs. business management specialist vs. general and operations manager) and cautioned him about it for future filings. The conclusion section contains an apparent drafting error stating 'The evidence does establish the national importance' when context makes clear the AAO meant the evidence does NOT establish national importance, consistent with the dismissal outcome.

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
• 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