The Petitioner, a legal analyst/paralegal-turned-Director of Business Affairs at a U.S. law firm, proposed to provide legal and business consulting services to multinational companies and law firms, focusing on facilitating cross-border business between the United States and Brazil.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her current or future employer(s) and their clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her legal and business projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“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

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work...”

  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

Notable

The AAO expressly noted it considered the first-prong failure as 'an independent and alternate basis' for dismissal, and clarified that the petitioner's extensive legal career and experience were relevant to prong 2, not prong 1, redirecting her argument rather than crediting it toward national importance.

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

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