The Petitioner, a professional pilot, proposed to operate a company facilitating jet owners/operators to outsource administration of their private aircraft, including maintenance coordination, hangar rentals, crew management, and pilot services, from Florida.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the business plan contains material information that is inconsistent with information provided on the Form I-140 regarding the Petitioner's proposed employment.”

“the business plan bears minimal probative value, and the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence in the record is similarly reduced.”

“his endeavor appears to benefit the specific clients or other entities and individuals who may use his services.”

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor of "providing [the Petitioner's] aviation services" will have broader implications beyond his clients”

“None of the publications in the record referenced by the Petitioner on appeal...address the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor, or how it may have "national or even global implications within a particular field"”

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan bears minimal probative value, and the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence in the record is similarly reduced.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “None of the publications in the record...address the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor, or how it may have "national or even global implications within a particular field"”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “the Petitioner's prior academic, employment, and training history are immaterial to whether his proposed endeavor may have national importance”

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

Notable

AAO relied heavily on material inconsistencies between the business plan (General Manager role, $72k-$81k wages, 7 employees) and the Form I-140 (Professional Pilot, $50k wage) under Matter of Ho, finding this reduced the business plan's probative value and undermined the national importance claim; the Petitioner's personal statement in response to the NOID further contradicted the business plan by omitting the general manager/hiring role.

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
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod