An electrical engineer with 21 years of renewable energy experience proposed to start a consulting company assisting U.S. companies with development, management, and financial structuring of clean energy projects, including feasibility studies and financial modeling for solar projects.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.”

“The Petitioner must demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would have a substantial national impact on these large government initiatives rather than just contribute to them in some way.”

“However, it is not clear how one pilot project and one potential solar project with a mining company in two rural counties in the United States would result in a potential prospective national impact on numerous large government initiatives”

“A mere potential contribution to various matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

“In sum, the provided support letters largely reiterate the Petitioner's assertions as to national importance and provide little additional support for the claimed potential prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor.”

“Further, several of the support letters indicate that they do not know the Beneficiary and that they have never worked with him, leaving uncertainty as to their probative value.”

“The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that his proposed endeavor aligned with the newly discussed executive orders, let alone that his endeavor would have a broad and significant national impact on these new initiatives.”

“Notably, the Petitioner does not submit detailed business plans related to either project, including indicating in what county his proposed pilot project will take place.”

“The Petitioner did not submit sufficiently specific and targeted business plans to demonstrate broad-based national level impact.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not submit sufficiently specific and targeted business plans to demonstrate broad-based national level impact.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the provided support letters largely reiterate the Petitioner's assertions as to national importance and provide little additional support”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The current executive orders only discuss oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals, and nuclear energy, and make no mention of the promotion of solar or other renewable energy.”

  AAO decision text
• funding · ignored

  “the Petitioner provided no supporting evidence to indicate that he had received any such government funding, or that he would be seeking to obtain it.”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

Notable

The AAO discussed how the Petitioner's endeavor was tied to executive orders from the prior administration promoting renewable energy, but noted that new executive orders from the current administration (Declaring a National Energy Emergency, Unleashing American Energy) revoked many of those prior orders and focused instead on oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy, undermining the Petitioner's claimed alignment with current national priorities -- an unusual example of a shifting policy landscape affecting the national importance analysis under Matter of Ho's continuing-eligibility rule.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of Ho

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