The Petitioner sought to run a Florida-based company providing child-nutrition consulting, education, and training services to schools, families, and communities, including advocacy for nutrition-related policy changes.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor is of national importance”

“the labor certification process itself is intended to address labor shortages and her proposed endeavor does not appear to alleviate the shortage of nutritionists to such a degree that it would be considered of national impact”

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“her business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

“the RIMS modeling relies on various assumptions, which renders it insufficient, by a preponderance of the evidence, to support her assertion that her endeavor will create the economic benefits she asserts”

“the Petitioner has not established her endeavor's national importance because it does not sufficiently extend beyond her own company, any employees, clients, and other entities or individuals to whom she will provide services”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “her business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the writer restates similar national importance arguments asserted by the Petitioner...these assertions are insufficient to establish the endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “they do not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how her endeavor would have broader implications”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “we decline to consider it for the first time on appeal”

  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
• 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

Petitioner made grandiose rhetorical claims, comparing her endeavor to 'almost as radical as the Copernican revolution in the sciences and philosophy'; AAO rejected these as unsupported general assertions and noted the endeavor's primary focus was not research despite such framing.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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