The Petitioner, an IP specialist, proposed to provide IP audit and IP management analysis services to companies and individuals in tech, biotech, and art fields, eventually setting up her own company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her providing specific IP services rather than the national importance of IP or the wide range of business fields or industries in which she intends to work.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of providing IP audits and IP management analyses as an IP Specialist stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential or futuristic employers or clients”

“the business plan does not make any employment or revenue projections from her anticipated company or how her business would impact the economy.”

“she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not make any employment or revenue projections from her anticipated company or how her business would impact the economy.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the record contains evidence relating to general IP material, such as IP principles for advancing cures and therapies, Presidential proclamations, trade policies, and IP enforcement.”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

AAO resolved the case entirely on Prong 1 (national importance), declining to reach Prongs 2 and 3, yet closed with the standard boilerplate that 'each' reason is an 'independent and alternate basis' despite only one prong being analyzed. A footnote also rebuts the Petitioner's factual dispute over the business plan's 10-year timeline, quoting the plan directly to contradict her appellate assertion.

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.

• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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