The Petitioner, a legal analyst and entrepreneur, sought to expand his existing Florida-based business providing legal consultancy and advisory services to U.S. and Brazilian companies to promote economic development.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work.”

“while the Petitioner cited shortages of "business professionals" in the United States, the Director pointed out that the relevant question is not the importance of the field”

“its anticipated economic impact would not reach the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner's statements and business plan outline generalized descriptions of the legal consultancy services that the Petitioner intends to provide”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the articles and industry reports do not include insight into how any specific endeavor proposed by the Petitioner is one that rises to a level of national importance.”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner's appeal largely asserted error without specificity (e.g., claiming USCIS imposed 'novel substantive and evidentiary requirements' without identifying them), which the AAO explicitly criticized as failing to meet the requirement under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v) to identify specific errors.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers