The Petitioner, a Turkish-trained lawyer, proposed to establish his own law firm in New Jersey providing bilateral legal services (real estate, IP, corporate, immigration, and citizenship law) to individuals and companies in the U.S. and Turkey.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“did not clarify how the benefits of the Petitioner's law firm would extend beyond his company or clients”

“the Director had not established that his endeavor would impact the field of law on a broader level, beyond the benefit to his clients”

“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the record did not adequately support the basis for such projections”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an attorney”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters lacked the specificity required to demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor had national importance”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the record did not adequately support the basis for such projections”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “he does not provide specific examples of factual or legal errors in the Director's analysis of the evidence”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an attorney”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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 cited Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW grants are discretionary, aligning with Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit precedent. The Petitioner's argument that the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard was rejected as unsupported. The AAO expressly declined to address prong 2 (well-positioned) or prong 3, resting dismissal solely on the national importance failure under prong 1.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of E-M-

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