The Petitioner, a security systems and electrical engineer, proposed to work as CEO of his own company designing, selling, and installing smart home automation and security-monitoring technology products.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not demonstrate it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact, broadly impact the industry on national or global level beyond his business and customers”

“These projections, however, lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them.”

“The Petitioner's reliance on his aspirational business plan, support letters, and general industry reports, thus, does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or will have substantial positive economic effects that may indicate national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “These projections, however, lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the referenced evidence and assertions focus on his experience and skills and relates to Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record...does not demonstrate how his proposed work would have the broader implications for the industry and U.S. economy as he claims, beyond his business and clientele”

  AAO decision text
• patents · discounted

  “he does not claim, and the record does not include any evidence, that his foreign patent made any industry-wide impact in the United States”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “general industry reports, thus, does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

This was a second appeal following a prior AAO remand. The AAO discussed at length whether the Petitioner's RFE response describing a new CEO role constituted an impermissible material change from the initially filed endeavor (citing Katigbak and Izummi), though it ultimately assumed no material change and still found no national importance. The AAO also noted that a newly filed U.S. provisional patent application submitted on appeal 'will not be examined for patentability and will become abandoned' within twelve months, undermining its evidentiary value.

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)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak

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