dismissedAUG072024_01B52032024-08-07 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 legal analyst, proposed to provide legal analysis services to U.S. law firms and legal departments operating or planning to operate in Brazil, later also asserting plans to found a legal technology company using AI tools and to offer cybersecurity services to the U.S. government.
Field: legal analysis / law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications contemplated by Dhanasar”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's work as a single legal analyst for "U.S. companies and individuals in need" may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
“the generalized information regarding the legal profession and business is immaterial to whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
“Because the Petitioner did not assert at the time of filing that he planned to found a legal technology company or to provide cybersecurity services to governmental agencies or organizations, his assertions in response to the Director's RFE regarding those plans present a new set of facts”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“it is not material to the issue of whether the prospective impact of the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake may have broader implications indicative of national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“his assertions in response to the Director's RFE regarding those plans present a new set of facts”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the generalized information regarding the legal profession and business is immaterial to whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
746coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO emphasized that new plans (legal tech company, cybersecurity services to government) first raised in RFE response constituted an impermissible 'new set of facts' under Katigbak/Izummi rather than clarification of the original endeavor, and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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 Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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