The Petitioner, CEO of an Israeli company providing AI-enabled customer experience software, sought to relocate and expand the company to the U.S., establishing an 'innovation center' in Ohio and partnering with distributors and consultants to deploy the technology to medium and large organizations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner however has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”

“the Petitioner also mentions Ohio as the location for his innovation center, creating inconsistency in his claims.”

“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence and assertions, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner nonetheless has not provided sufficient evidence or detailed information to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO noted an internal inconsistency in the Petitioner's evidence regarding the location of the proposed 'innovation center' (two different Ohio locations cited), which undercut the economically-depressed-area argument for national importance. The decision relies heavily on distinguishing personal qualifications/experience (relevant to prong two) from the endeavor-focused prong one analysis, and declines to reach prongs two and three as moot given the dispositive prong one failure.

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

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