A linguist with a bachelor's degree sought to work as Director of Communications at a trucking company, training drivers on safety/compliance standards and researching in-cab safety technology, later claiming on appeal he intended to eventually own and operate his own trucking company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it is not apparent how the [proposed endeavor] has national importance.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake."”

“such information establishes that working for training its employees, and managing its operations will benefit his employer, his coworkers, and his employer's customers or clients who use its transportation services.”

“training drivers to be qualified is distinguishable from hiring drivers.”

“the record does not elaborate on the economic effects the proposed endeavor of training truck drivers and managing will have”

“his discussion of owning and operating a trucking company present a new set of facts that cannot establish eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the document is the Petitioner's personal plan, not the Petitioner's employer's business plan.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “publications that discuss generalized information about the freight trucking industry but do not discuss the Petitioner and his proposed endeavor do not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · ignored

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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO noted the Director erroneously treated a bachelor's degree as an 'advanced degree' without assessing five years of progressive experience, but reserved judgment on threshold eligibility since the national-importance prong was dispositive. AAO also rejected a new claim raised for the first time on appeal (owning/operating his own trucking company) as an impermissible new fact under Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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