The Petitioner proposed to operate a legal consulting firm, claiming her work would benefit the legal industry and U.S.-Brazil trade relations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she did not establish her endeavor of operating a legal consulting firm was nationally important because she did not demonstrate it would result in broader implications to the industry, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise result in substantial positive economic effects as she claimed”

“while such evidence demonstrates the importance of her field, it does not establish the prospective impact of her specific endeavor”

“they did not establish that the broader implications contributable to her specific endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “this evidence, considered together, does not establish new facts that support the reopening of these proceedings”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “these inconsistencies cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “while such evidence demonstrates the importance of her field, it does not establish the prospective impact of her specific endeavor”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

This is the third combined motion to reopen/reconsider in a long procedural history (initial denial, appeal, two prior combined motions, now a third). AAO repeatedly declined to consider the Petitioner's alternative exceptional-ability claim because it was not raised before the Director, citing Matter of J-Y-C. The Petitioner submitted substantially similar briefs and new industry articles each time, which AAO characterized as merely rearguing prior issues, citing Matter of O-S-G-'s rule against motions that simply resubmit prior briefs.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of O-S-G-

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