The petitioner, a biomedical systems technician, proposed to establish and operate a company providing clinical engineering and biomedical equipment repair, calibration, leasing, and training services to hospitals, clinics, and laboratories.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient details, and the record does not adequately show through supporting documentation, how the Petitioner's business and services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide sufficient details, and the record does not adequately show through supporting documentation, how the Petitioner's business and services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano, rejecting Petitioner's argument (citing Matter of M-P-) that the Director erred by not addressing all evidence or reaching the remaining Dhanasar prongs; AAO distinguished M-P- as involving an unexplained decision, unlike here.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)

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