dismissedAUG272020_01B52032020-08-27 · 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 consultant, planned to continue working in the U.S. advising foreign and U.S. companies on cross-border commercial transactions, tax, and legal matters involving Brazil and Latin America, while also running an e-commerce furniture export company and advising on construction projects.
Field: legal consulting / cross-border business advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and clientele to impact the furniture industry, construction sector, real estate market, or U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and clientele”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 credits substantial merit (based on extensive industry background articles) but finds national importance unmet purely due to lack of evidence tying the endeavor's impact beyond the petitioner's own company/clientele; explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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