dismissedJAN102025_04B52032025-01-10 · combined · 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, an attorney with over 20 years of experience in Brazilian tax and customs law, proposed to establish a consulting company in the United States advising on customs, tax, and international trade issues.
Field: Brazilian tax and customs law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not establish her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, other substantial positive economic effects, or broader implications indicating national importance”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“she has not demonstrated that her undertaking would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“she has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our decision”
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
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
The Petitioner attempted to bolster her national-importance argument with personal qualifications (attorney with 20+ years experience) that AAO explained belong to prong 2, not prong 1, illustrating a common petitioner conflation of the two prongs.
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. 103.5
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