The Petitioner, a civil engineer, proposed to establish a consulting company to work with energy companies on clean energy/wind turbine projects, including design, inspection, and conference presentations related to onshore and offshore wind energy.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has the potential for positive economic effects commensurate with national importance”

“the business plan does not describe the business activity that it will conduct with its clients, nor state an intention to operate in an economically depressed area”

“neither the Petitioner's personal statements nor his business plan describe a plan to employ any U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “did not contain sufficient information to establish national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “relate to renewable energy in general, not to the Petitioner's specific 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
• 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

Petitioner argued the Director conflated the proposed endeavor with proposed employment and failed to consider all evidence; AAO rejected both arguments, noting a district court decision is non-binding and citing multiple circuit precedents on agencies not needing to address every piece of evidence. AAO also addressed Petitioner's argument that the Director imposed a 'novel, arbitrary' standard by paraphrasing Dhanasar's 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' language, finding no meaningful deviation from Dhanasar.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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