The petitioner proposed to operate a consultancy providing business, financial literacy, banking, and investment advisory services to small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor in order to establish her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”

“This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans or how her specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”

“The business plan generally speculates that the company's services would result in entrepreneurial success and significant business growth in the United States, but it does not provide independent evidence”

“the importance of the Petitioner's business endeavor cannot be established based solely on its general relationship to business sectors recognized as one of many sectors of importance within the national economy”

“broad assertions regarding general benefits to the economy and potential to create jobs will not establish an entrepreneur's qualification for a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The business plan generally speculates that the company's services would result in entrepreneurial success and significant business growth in the United States, but it does not provide independent evidence”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “evidence of investment interest and a petitioner's job experience generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor... but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “letters expressing investment interest ... generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor ... but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans or how her specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”

  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 applied specific USCIS Policy Manual guidance for entrepreneurs, emphasizing that broad claims of economic benefit or job creation, or reliance on the importance of the SME sector generally, cannot substitute for evidence that the individual's specific business would have a national-level impact; it also analogized the petitioner's consulting/training activity to Dhanasar's own teaching-activity example, finding that transmitting knowledge to clients does not equate to broader field impact.

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.

• Flores v. Garland

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