dismissedDEC132024_04B52032024-12-13 · combined · 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 provide conciliation and mediation services and to collaborate with or serve as a legal policy consultant addressing tax reform, intellectual property protection, commercial law, public administration, and prison-system issues for Brazilian and American populations.
Field: law / legal services (mediation, alternative dispute resolution, legal consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not show that her proposed conciliation and mediation services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the field of alternative dispute resolution more broadly”
“Nor did the Petitioner establish that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ US workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's legal skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These types of evidence, however, relate to the second Dhanasar prong.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“These types of evidence, however, relate to the second Dhanasar prong.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision”
AAO decision text
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
2,589coded 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 clarifies that its prior appellate dismissal was not based on the Petitioner's company status, as she claimed, but on failure to meet Dhanasar prong 1; it repeatedly redirects her personal-credential and letter evidence to prong 2, which was never reached because prong 1 was dispositive.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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