A former Chinese customs official proposed to establish a U.S. company providing consulting services on Chinese customs policy and practice, acting as a customs clearance agent, and hosting annual conferences on Chinese customs and tax regulations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“he offered no evidence to support these assertions or explain why they related to his specific endeavor”

“the record does not show how opening and operating a consulting firm stands to sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner's own proposed company and clientele, to impact the import and export industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“he does not explain the lack of any business plan, or any evidence that he has made progress towards the startup of his business”

“the record includes no evidence of interest in the proposed company from potential customers or investors, or of any progress in the starting up of such a company”

“it does not demonstrate that he has any experience as an entrepreneur or in running a business”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“because the Petitioner has not established the substantial merit or national importance of his proposed endeavor as required in the first prong of the framework, and has not shown that he is well positioned to advance that endeavor, we conclude that it would not be in the national interest to grant him a waiver”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he does not explain the lack of any business plan, or any evidence that he has made progress towards the startup of his business”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited
• awards · ignored

  “evidence regarding his receipt of awards and service as a reviewer was not submitted in support of this petition”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

AAO disagreed with the Director's specific reasoning on prong 1 (finding the endeavor description sufficiently specific and clarifying that current employment status is not dispositive), but still found the endeavor lacked national importance on independent grounds, illustrating AAO's practice of correcting service-center reasoning while affirming the ultimate denial.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution