As founder and managing partner of a Brazil-based executive interim management (EIM) firm and its Florida affiliate, the Petitioner proposed to provide EIM consulting services helping companies, entrepreneurs, and investors start, expand, and improve businesses, with a claimed focus on attracting and maintaining Brazilian foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“such evidence does not necessarily establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor”

“this evidence supports a finding that the Petitioner provided benefits to client companies that contracted him for his services”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the connection between his EIM services and FDI”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“the proposed endeavor does not appear to operate on a scale that rises to the level of national importance”

“he reiterates the importance of industry or profession, his expertise, and his role within his company; however, these factors do not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not sufficiently address which percentage of the Petitioner's clients or projects will involve FDI”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “such evidence does not substantiate a finding that the proposed endeavor stands to impact the FDI or EIM fields, or the nation as a whole”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “he has not explained which Brazilian entity invested $40 million and which U.S. company received it”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “such evidence does not necessarily establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  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
• 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

Notable

The Petitioner argued that submitting over 350 pages of evidence satisfied the preponderance standard; AAO rejected this quantity-over-quality argument citing Matter of Chawathe. The Petitioner also improperly relied on COVID-19 pandemic economic effects on FDI, but AAO noted the petition was filed pre-pandemic and could not rely on post-filing developments.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Matter of E-M-
• 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