The Petitioner, a Brazilian entrepreneur, proposed to continue working as an entrepreneur in the United States providing business, logistics, import/export, and consulting services, initially through a wood pellet consultancy and later through import/export work.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its national importance”

“the Petitioner has not established how her individual employment as an entrepreneur in one or more of the areas identified would affect the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national importance”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”

“The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections and, even if she had, they would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “his findings stem from the significance of entrepreneurship in the import/export industry”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “they are of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor remains unclear”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

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

  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 found unresolved discrepancy between the Petitioner's originally proposed wood pellet consultancy company and a different company (formed post-filing, for 'global consultant and commercial representation') she submitted evidence of in response to the RFE; AAO declined to consider the new company under the material change/Katigbak rule and found the inconsistency left the endeavor insufficiently specific to assess national importance.

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
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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