The Petitioner proposed to provide market research and financial analysis services to U.S. businesses, initially as a financial development director for a company, aiming to contribute to economic growth and innovation.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organizations and clients he would serve”

“the record does not establish with specific, probative information how the Petitioner's services would have broader implications beyond his clients' growth”

“Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”

“the Petitioner outlines an extensive list of short-term and long-term goals that are general and broad in scope”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner's plans to establish a new company and perform financial planning services presented after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the 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

Notable

AAO rejected a new/updated business plan submitted on appeal as impermissibly changing material facts of the proposed endeavor (shift from employment with a company to opening his own business), applying the 'new facts cannot retroactively establish eligibility' rule and declining to consider the revised plan; it then evaluated national importance based on the original business plan alone.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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