The petitioner, a software engineer, proposed to start and lead a software company offering proprietary tools to optimize manufacturing production-floor workflows, though the record left his specific role and the endeavor's details unclear.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not plainly state what the endeavor would be.”

“the business plan's revenue calculations are arbitrary and unsubstantiated.”

“The business plan's arbitrary, unsubstantiated, and improbable financial information casts doubt on its veracity, undermining both its reliability and sufficiency”

“the relevant question here is not whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves "fields explicitly listed" among critical and emerging technologies.”

“the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “casts doubt on its veracity, undermining both its reliability and sufficiency”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “explains why those documents do not demonstrate whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “bears minimal probative value because it purports [facts] which directly conflicts with the software company's own business plan”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “cannot establish eligibility because it presents a set of facts that did not exist at the time the Petitioner filed the Form I-140”

  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

Notable

The AAO found the business plan internally inconsistent (e.g., wage figures on the Form I-140 not matching those in the plan, and two of three first-year employees allegedly earning a combined $2,070 annually), treating this as casting doubt on the reliability of all supporting evidence under Matter of Ho. The petitioner's attempt to rely on a later, more detailed five-year plan and a third-party consulting assessment submitted in RFE response was rejected because it introduced new facts not present at filing.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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