The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, proposed to start a consulting company in Florida offering advisory, auditing, implementation, and training services in integrated health-safety-environment-quality (HSEQ) management systems to small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not contain probative, supporting documentation to establish that the Petitioner will directly supervise three individuals... with identical names”

“the Petitioner's own personal statements underscore that the proposed endeavor may benefit his own company and that of his clients, but it does not indicate how the endeavor may have "national or even global implications"”

“he does not elaborate on the wages he would pay those workers or other details that would assist in determining whether employing those 10 workers... would have the type of "significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”

“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “casts doubt on the veracity of his description of the proposed endeavor at the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have national or even global implications”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO cast doubt on the credibility of the petitioner's entire business plan and personal statements because he claimed to employ three subordinate managers who all shared the identical name, applying an adverse-inference/veracity analysis under Matter of Ho to discount the remaining evidence before even reaching the national-importance merits.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-

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