The Petitioner sought to work as a business director for his own companies, expanding real estate, digital marketing, and healthcare-related mobile applications from Latin America into the U.S. market.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”

“he has not explained how this impact would extend beyond his intended area of operation and rise to the level of national importance”

“The Petitioner also has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce a national labor shortage in the STEM field as claimed”

“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”

“the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the overall fields to establish its national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”

  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
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Director had found Petitioner well-positioned (prong 2) and that petitioner qualified under threshold EB-2, and only found against him on national importance and prong 3 benefit; AAO affirmed only on prong 1 as dispositive and declined to reach prongs 2/3.

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