The Petitioner, a Brazilian police inspector and law-firm-trained CEO, proposed to open and manage his own private security consulting firm in Florida, offering risk assessment, crime-prevention, and anti-money-laundering due diligence services to businesses, with plans to expand nationwide.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plans are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized.”

“Although the authors briefly address the Petitioner's initial business plan, they do not sufficiently address its prospective substantial economic impact”

“much of the content of the expert opinion letters lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “We do not question the significance of these issues... but the record does not provide adequate support”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO declined to consider a new impact analysis submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano; also noted the Petitioner's initial and updated business plans contained inconsistent revenue and tax projections ($232,339 vs. $179,876), undermining reliability of the economic claims.

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 Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• 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