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 and entrepreneur, proposed to operate her own company offering legal consultancy services in fields such as labor law, environmental law, and tax law.
Field: legal consultancy (labor, environmental, tax law) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- other · discounted
“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
The AAO added a footnote advising the Petitioner, in case of refiling, that she had not submitted documentation of an active U.S. law license despite proposing to offer legal consultancy services, though this issue was not the basis for dismissal.
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
- 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