The Petitioner planned to establish and operate a company in the United States providing market research and data analysis/consulting services to businesses and investors seeking sales growth and profitability.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans regarding his proposed marketing research and analysis services company or how this specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”

“A business plan submitted in response to the RFE uses similarly vague language to outline the Petitioner's intentions”

“The Petitioner did not, however, provide a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the company will have a substantial positive economic effect within any field.”

“This ambitious vision for the impact of the Petitioner's company on the nation's economy is not supported by probative evidence, including any evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between his company's services and the economy.”

“the asserted national importance of his proposed endeavor relies on the overall importance of responsible financial management and data analysis in optimizing business performance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not, however, provide a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans”

  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

AAO noted the appeal itself was deficient because Petitioner failed to specify Director's alleged legal/factual errors, which alone would justify dismissal under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), but AAO nonetheless proceeded to address the merits of prong 1.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• 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