The Petitioner sought to establish a financial consulting services company in Central Florida serving small and medium-sized enterprises and women entrepreneurs, offering financial literacy workshops, consulting, business plan development, compliance support, and mentorship.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“Simply working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance.”

“she did not demonstrate how her claimed employment and revenue projections show a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

“his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the record lacks evidence which supports any of these factors.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner has made any preparations for starting her new business beyond writing a business plan.”

“The Petitioner's business plan itself provides various financial forecasts and staffing projections but lacks independent and corroborating evidence to support these projections.”

“the letters do not further elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “she did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of her figures”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these letters also do not establish the endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the letters do not further elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown other corroborating evidence that these interests will result in contracts or clients”

  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
• 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
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO found the Petitioner failed both prongs 1 and 2 (jointly determinative, neither alone stated as dispositive) and expressly reserved prong 3. AAO also withdrew SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner was well-positioned under prong 2, disagreeing with the service center's favorable conclusion there.

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-
• Matter of NYSDOT

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