The Petitioner, a Brazilian public relations professional, proposed to provide public relations consulting and communications advisory services to established and startup U.S. companies through her Florida LLC.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has provided contradictory evidence regarding the nature ofthe proposed endeavor as an initial matter”

“the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor of providing public relations consulting services sufficiently extends beyond her company and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly”

“she also did not demonstrate how her claimed employment and revenue projections, even if credible, will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor rather than the importance of public relations work, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “she also did not demonstrate how her claimed employment and revenue projections, even if credible, will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor rather than the importance of public relations work”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored

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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO emphasized that the Petitioner's evidence was internally contradictory as to the nature of the proposed endeavor, and cited Flores v. Garland for the proposition that NIW adjudication is discretionary in nature; the Petitioner's citation to Matter of Buletini (abuse-of-discretion for failing to consider evidence) was rejected as the Director had adequately addressed the business plan and job-creation claims.

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
• Chen v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• 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