The Petitioner sought to work as CEO and general manager of his own new civil engineering consulting business in Florida, providing engineering and project management services to construction companies and developing low-income residential and other projects.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Director found that the record did not establish that his proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond his business and his clients to impact his field more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the underutilized communities or the United States”

“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

“merely working in the engineering and construction fields or starting a civil engineering consulting business for the construction industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“Instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor having a prospective impact in the civil engineering or construction fields, the opinion focuses on the importance of the construction industry”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic benefits to the United States”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “His academic credentials and professional experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “merely working in the engineering and construction fields or starting a civil engineering consulting business for the construction industry is insufficient”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Stating that the Petitioner's professional experience would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the 'national importance' requirement”

  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

AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. Petitioner's economic-impact and industry-shortage arguments were addressed extensively but rejected as conflating industry importance with the specific endeavor's national importance.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• 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