The Petitioner, a financial manager, proposed to start his own U.S.-based financial consulting/advisory company serving small and medium-sized businesses, offering services such as company valuation, financial planning, and cost control.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the company's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

“the Petitioner initially claimed that his proposed endeavor would generate four jobs and revenue of $648,000 by the end of its fifth year of operations, in contrast to the projections set forth in the business plan”

“merely working in the field of financial management or starting a financial advisory services business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the company's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters only address his past accomplishments as a financial manager and do not address the national importance of his endeavor's potential prospective impact”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  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

Notable

The AAO noted the Director's decision was silent on substantial merit and independently found that prong met, but still dismissed on national importance grounds; it also flagged unexplained discrepancies between the Petitioner's initial professional plan (4 jobs, $648,000 revenue) and his later business plan (21 jobs, $3.3 million revenue), citing Matter of Ho for the principle that such discrepancies must be resolved with independent objective evidence.

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 E-M-
• Matter of Ho
• 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