dismissedDEC102019_01B52032019-12-10 · 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.

The Petitioner proposed to work as a consultant for innovative companies and start his own businesses, helping Brazilian and Latin American companies enter the U.S. market and assisting U.S. businesses in cross-border transactions with Brazil and Latin America, including online sales operations.

Field: business development, marketing strategy consulting, and cross-border trade facilitation (U.S.-Brazil/Latin America) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact his field or U.S. trade more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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

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

The AAO credited the Petitioner's proposed work as having 'substantial merit' based on general industry articles, but found it failed the national importance sub-prong of Prong 1 because the impact would not extend beyond his individual clientele. The AAO explicitly declined to analyze Prongs 2 and 3. The conclusion paragraph contains a boilerplate statement that 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' which is incongruous given only one prong was analyzed.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer