The petitioner sought to establish and expand a Florida-based company acting as an intermediary that procures electronic components and equipment from U.S. manufacturers, particularly small and medium businesses, for export to Brazil.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“establishing a business in an important sector of the U.S. economy is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence - aside from claims in her statements and business plan coupled with statistics”

“this claim is based upon the Regional Input-Output Modeling System ... not to assess the expected economic impact of a nascent international export business”

“an estimated .007769% decrease in the U.S. trade deficit is a de minimis portion of the U.S. trade deficit”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Broad statements and projections regarding the prospective role that her company will play in the U.S. economy and 'global markets' do not demonstrate the prospective impact”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this claim is based upon the Regional Input-Output Modeling System ... not to assess the expected economic impact of a nascent international export business”

  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

Notable

The AAO relied on external U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau trade-deficit statistics to calculate that the petitioner's projected economic output would represent a de minimis (0.007769%) fraction of the national trade deficit, using this figure to reject the claimed national economic impact. The AAO also noted that the RIMS II modeling tool cited by the petitioner is designed for assessing regional projects, not a nascent international export business.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland

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