The Petitioner, an electrical engineer and project manager, proposed to establish a consulting company providing high-level advisory services to U.S. businesses and government agencies on data center infrastructure and data storage.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the consulting services he intends to provide as part of his endeavor have broader implications beyond his own company and clients and at a level commensurate with national importance”

“the Petitioner's general assertions regarding the contributions his services will make to the national economy and job growth are not corroborated with supporting evidence”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he does not assert that such services are currently unavailable from other companies, nor does he sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the specific services he proposes to provide offer original innovations”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and professional experience and/or the overall importance of data centers in the United States.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and professional experience and/or the overall importance of data centers in the United States.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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

AAO expressly withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner failed to sufficiently describe his proposed endeavor, finding it adequately articulated, yet still dismissed on the merits of national importance; also rejected Petitioner's argument that being labeled an 'entrepreneur' rather than 'consultant' was a material misinterpretation.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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