dismissedDEC142021_01B52032021-12-14 · 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 advisor, planned to work as a foreign legal adviser and international business consultant, including through his own consulting company, helping U.S. companies navigate Brazilian law, business, and regulatory environments for cross-border trade and investment.
Field: international business/legal consulting (Brazil-U.S. cross-border transactions) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employers or his company and its clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“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”
“he does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
“Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increases in foreign trade and investment attributable to his company's future consulting services stand to substantially affect economic activity in Florida or nationally”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“he does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner has not shown that the U.S.-Brazilian trade statistics he provides on appeal demonstrate that his specific endeavor will offer substantial economic benefits”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
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
The AAO found the Petitioner's work had 'substantial merit' but failed national importance solely because impact was confined to his future employers/clients rather than the broader field or economy; sales projections lacking methodology were treated as insufficiently substantiated rather than outright speculative.
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
- Section 291 of the Act
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