dismissedFEB292024_06B52032024-02-29 · appeal · Texas 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 lawyer, proposed to open her own legal and business consulting company in the United States, advising small companies, start-ups, and international clients on cross-border transactions, immigration planning, and financial/corporate matters.
Field: legal consulting / business law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link her specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth”
“several of these objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of a legal and business consultant rather than establishing that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
“general assertions about her company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions”
“her conclusion is not based on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“a lack of detail concerning her proposal makes it difficult to discern how the Petitioner's endeavor differs from that of others in the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not discuss with specificity the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, or how such an endeavor will have national or global implications”
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
“she offered information about the importance and significance of cross-border transactions”
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
- 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
1,358coded 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 agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found national importance unmet solely due to failure to link the specific consulting endeavor (as opposed to the legal field generally) to broader economic impact; prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved as unnecessary.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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