The Petitioner proposed to expand a Brazilian fried chicken restaurant franchise he co-owns in the United States, beginning with a location in Utah, and later asserted (on RFE/appeal) that he instead intended to provide business consulting and training services to small and medium-sized businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor established at the time of filing the Form I-140... may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance.”

“the record does not establish how these generalized differentiations may have national or even global implications within the culinary field”

“it does not clarify the work those individuals would perform, the wages the Petitioner would pay those individuals for performing that work, the particular location in Utah where the first restaurant will be located”

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the business plan does not establish how the Petitioner's part-time work managing a pressure washing services company may be relevant to the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “they cannot-and do not-establish eligibility, and we need not address them further”

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

Notable

AAO treated the Petitioner's RFE/appeal shift from a fried-chicken franchise to a consulting/training business as an improper 'new set of facts' under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi and declined to consider it, evaluating national importance solely against the original, undated business plan. The AAO also took administrative notice that restaurants commonly differentiate themselves in product and preparation, undermining the differentiation argument.

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)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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