The Petitioner, an improvised explosive device disposal officer, proposed to consult on security and counterterrorism matters for U.S. government agencies, while alternatively describing unrelated ventures such as residential real estate development, building demolition, snow removal, and investment services in Bangladesh.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not provide a detailed explanation and documentation that would identify and describe the specific endeavor( s) that he would pursue”

“the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's specific endeavor(s) should this petition be approved.”

“his proposed employment is in a field (security) that is both of substantial intrinsic merit and national in scope.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner' s consulting projects would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”

“The Petitioner does not provide evidence or narrative explaining how securing investments to construct residential real estate aligns with his previously stated fields”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the substance of which have not been adequately described in the record”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the submitted letters do not provide sufficient infmmation regarding the specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will focus on”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  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 criticized a supporting expert letter for conflating the vacated NYSDOT 'intrinsic merit/national scope' framework with Dhanasar's first prong, explicitly rejecting that field-level importance can substitute for endeavor-specific analysis. The Petitioner's shifting, multi-track business proposals (security consulting vs. real estate vs. demolition vs. snow removal vs. Bangladesh investment) were treated as evidence of an unidentified endeavor.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-

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