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, an international tax advisor with 15+ years of experience, proposed to continue working with high-net-worth foreign (primarily Brazilian) investors to attract foreign direct investment into the United States through a self-developed tax/investment methodology.
Field: international tax advisory / foreign direct investment consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the same evidence does not adequately describe how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would elevate foreign direct investment in a manner commensurate with matters of national importance.”
“The record does not contain evidence which would sufficiently support extrapolating one data point from one client's financial information to determine whether the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications or positive economic impact rising to a level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner's argument spotlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dhanasar framework's first prong.”
“these "independent expert opinion letters" do not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance either.”
“An~ !opinion exclusively makes generalized pronouncements about the Petitioner's background and skill, both of which are wholly irrelevant to an evaluation of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these "independent expert opinion letters" do not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Dhanasar framework is consequently unconcerned with the success of the proposed endeavor or the Petitioner's track record in their field of endeavor previously.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not adequately describe the Petitioner's "methodology" implemented through their proposed endeavor such that we could evaluate the potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“It is not clear from the Petitioner's assertion whether the amount is gross income, net income, or total investment.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The certificates earned by the Petitioner relate to them as an individual and their own personal participation in activities to enrich a community of professionals or promote business development.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the record does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work is "supporting the operations of the judicial system"”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Notable
AAO corrects the Director's finding of a 'material change' to the endeavor via RFE response, finding the Petitioner consistently described the endeavor; also notes and forgives the Director's single erroneous use of a female pronoun for the Petitioner. AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3 given dispositive prong 1 failure. Petitioner's CISA critical-infrastructure argument analyzed and rejected in detail as an economic/national-importance argument under prong 1.
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 Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
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