dismissedAUG312023_09B52032023-08-31 · 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 Brazilian-trained lawyer, proposed to operate a U.S. law firm as one of two managing partners, providing legal and managerial services to businesses and individuals, including pro bono services in underdeveloped communities.
Field: law / legal services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner has either passed a U.S. bar or established a law firm.”
“she has not demonstrated how the claimed revenue projections in her business plan, even if credible, offer "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the projected staffing levels, which includes 42 direct jobs and 210 indirect jobs, would more broadly impact Florida, the region, or the U.S. economy”
“we do not consider the indirect consequences of a petitioner's activity when determining whether it is of national importance”
“these factors do not address the merits of the proposed endeavor, nor do they explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will have broader implications reaching beyond the clients her law firm will represent”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner has either passed a U.S. bar or established a law firm.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these factors do not address the merits of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these factors do not address the merits of the proposed endeavor, nor do they explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will have broader implications”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 expressly reversed the Director's adverse finding on substantial merit (crediting the endeavor as having substantial merit as legal/entrepreneurial work) but still found national importance lacking, illustrating that substantial merit and national importance are treated as distinct sub-elements within Prong 1 even where AAO splits on them.
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 L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers