dismissedDEC182023_01B52032023-12-18 · appeal · Nebraska 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 attorney, proposed to provide legal consulting services in the U.S., including advising American companies on labor law, litigation, negotiation, and cross-jurisdictional business matters involving Brazil.
Field: law / legal consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has potential implications beyond her future employer or clients”
“the relevant focus is not on the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which the individual will work, but rather on the specific endeavor”
“these claims and evidence related to foreign trade and legal services in general are not sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“these claims are not supported by the evidence in the record”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's general, conclusory statements to the contrary are insufficient to meet her burden of proof”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these claims and evidence related to foreign trade and legal services in general are not sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
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 expressly reserved judgment on prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary alternative issues.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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