The petitioner proposed to operate a consulting firm advising small and medium-sized enterprises on financial restructuring, operational efficiency, and compliance, asserting this would spur job creation and economic growth.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans or how his specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”

“The business plan generally speculates that the company's services would result in significant business growth in the United States, but it does not provide independent evidence”

“The business plan is not, however, substantiated by a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”

“the importance of the Petitioner's business endeavor cannot be established based solely on its general relationship to business sectors recognized as one of many sectors of importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “evidence of investment interest and a petitioner's job experience generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan generally speculates that the company's services would result in significant business growth in the United States”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “not substantiated by a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “evidence of investment interest and a petitioner's job experience generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans or how his specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact”

  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
• 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

Notable

AAO expressly reserved prongs two and three as unnecessary once prong one failed, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for declining to make 'purely advisory findings.' The decision also cites USCIS Policy Manual guidance specific to entrepreneurs, noting broad economic-benefit assertions cannot establish national importance.

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.

• Flores v. Garland

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