The Petitioner proposed to operate an IT consulting company providing cybersecurity services to a variety of businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor was nationally important because the Petitioner did not show that his endeavor would result in broader implications to his field-beyond the direct benefits to his prospective clients”

“does not establish how the broader implications of his endeavor would extend beyond his immediate clients to otherwise impact the field or small businesses at a level commensurate with national importance”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to a level commensurate with national importance”

“the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the Petitioner does not directly address the Director's dismissal, and instead broadly states that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor based on the evidence submitted in the record”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“the Petitioner relies on the high demand and shortage of professionals in this field; however, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”

“the Petitioner has not shown how this claimed shortage establishes it would be beneficial for the United States to waive the job offer requirement”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “he submitted new letters from his former employers verifying his experience in the field”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner offered the same or similar arguments asserting his eligibility for the national interest waiver which he previously made before the Director”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p3 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
• U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

Notable

AAO emphasized a procedural threshold: the Petitioner failed to specifically contest the Director's most recent (combined-motion) decision on appeal, which alone was deemed a sufficient basis for dismissal, before AAO nonetheless proceeded to a de novo merits review.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Coelho

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