NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG102023_02B52032023-08-10 · 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.

A Brazilian lawyer with a background in business bankruptcy/judicial recovery proposed to practice law and/or establish a management-consulting company in Florida helping small and medium-sized U.S. businesses avoid or navigate Chapter 11 bankruptcy, later adding an unrelated claim of advising on cross-border trade with Brazil.

Field: law / business bankruptcy consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been fully consistent in this proceeding.”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor would have a significant impact beyond his company's clients.”
“expanding its service availability to 11 counties in central and southern Florida during the first four years of operations”
“The Petitioner did not explain how his employment would have a significant effect on a shortage of lawyers in his specialty.”
“General statistics do not show why the Petitioner's proposed endeavor qualifies him for an exemption from the statutory job offer requirement”
“the issue is not the overall national importance of judicial recovery and bankruptcy law or the aggregate impact of all bankruptcy cases”
“The Petitioner did not address or explain the significant discrepancy between the EPI and RIMS II figures.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter does not exempt the petitioner from establishing eligibility with independent, documentary evidence.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “General statistics do not show why the Petitioner's proposed endeavor qualifies him for an exemption from the statutory job offer requirement.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not explain how these details establish 'palpable broader implications' as he claimed.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “this information does not document the likely impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
    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
  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,312coded 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 found the petition's description of the proposed endeavor materially inconsistent across filing stages (lawyer -> management consultant -> cross-border trade advisor), citing Matter of Izummi's bar on material changes to conform to USCIS requirements, though it did not formally reject the claims on that basis, instead analyzing and rejecting national importance on the merits. The AAO also noted the Director's decision was 'incomplete' for failing to address exceptional ability or substantial merit, but proceeded to decide the case on national importance alone under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- reasoning.

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
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer