The Petitioner, a general and operations manager with an MBA, proposed to continue working as a general and operations professional advising U.S. companies, later introducing his own consulting company to help family-owned businesses with succession planning.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“However, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor meets the national importance element under the first prong of Dhanasar.”

“These documents provide general outlook on his profession as an operations manager and background information on the field of business and finance.”

“However, generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

“The Petitioner has not provided evidence to support that his endeavor as a general operations manager for one or more employers would have substantially positive effects”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its specific impact”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to users requirements”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “they do not provide any specific information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and are insufficient to establish national importance”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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 found the Petitioner's initial endeavor had substantial merit (withdrawing that portion of the Director's decision) but held that a material change of endeavor (introducing a new consulting company) during the RFE response, which the Petitioner did not contest on appeal, was deemed waived. The decision explicitly states each independent basis (though only prong 1 was actually analyzed) supports dismissal, and prongs 2 and 3 were expressly reserved.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of R-A-M-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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