This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, initially proposed to provide expert managerial services to U.S. companies, then later asserted (on RFE) a plan to found a healthcare consultancy, operations management, IT, and data privacy services company in Virginia.
Field: business/operations management, healthcare consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the potential prospective impact of [the Petitioner's] endeavor pointed to a single impact with his clients, rather than the nation.”
“the plan to found a new business and hire new workers presents a new set of facts thatcannotestablisheligibility.”
“the business plan presents inconsistent information about the number of employees to be hired and their annual salaries, which would reduce its credibility”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's work as a general and operations manager will have "national or even global implications within a particular field”
“General assertions regarding an industry that do not address how a specific endeavor will have broader implications or other substantial positive economic effects do not establish how a proposed endeavor may have national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“A petitioner's work experience relates to the second Dhanasar prong...but it does not relate to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found the Petitioner's shift from an initial 'managerial services' endeavor to a new business-founding plan raised in RFE response constituted an impermissible new material fact under Katigbak/Izummi, and the business plan itself contained internal inconsistencies (employee counts, salary figures) that would independently undermine its reliability even if considered.
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 Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The specific business/job-creation endeavor was introduced only in RFE response as a new material fact (unregistered company, inconsistent plan), leaving the original vague managerial-services endeavor without national importance evidence.
Define and document the specific endeavor with consistent, verifiable evidence (e.g., registered business, coherent job/salary figures) at filing—do not introduce a new endeavor theory in RFE response.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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