The Petitioner, who has over 20 years of experience in health insurance sales and commercial management, formed her own company to provide insurance and wealth management products, and to help U.S. companies find investment opportunities and facilitate sales/negotiations between the U.S. and Latin America/Iberian markets.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of entrepreneurship generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor.”

“The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”

“The tax return lists no salaries or wages paid, although the Petitioner's business plan projected hiring six employees in 2021.”

“he does not elaborate on how U.S. business involvement in Brazil and Latin America will have a prospective impact on the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “many of these reports are not specific to the field of commercial management”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the return covers only the first year of the business and reflects only the Petitioner's initial investment of $20,000 with no additional income”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence”

  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

Notable

AAO noted an inconsistency in the business plan's HUBZone maps (one map labeled for a different city, another depicting a Massachusetts location instead of the claimed Illinois site) and cited Matter of Ho for the Petitioner's burden to resolve inconsistencies. The decision also included a footnote (fn.6) providing an alternative holding that even if p2/p3 had been reached, the appeal would still have been dismissed, based on the Petitioner's failure to submit new evidence on appeal beyond what was already found deficient below.

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 Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-

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