dismissedJAN182024_01B52032024-01-18 · 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 with about 15 years of experience in tax, civil, business, and environmental law, proposed to establish a Florida-based legal consulting firm assisting foreign companies expanding into the U.S. and U.S. companies expanding into Brazil and Latin America.
Field: legal consulting / international trade and tax law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“These direct job creation and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis or a sufficient explanation of how they will be realized.”
“the record does not support that the direct creation of 20 additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit”
“Some of these client reference letters contain general statements about the broader impacts of the Petitioner's work, but those assertions are less persuasive.”
“many of the letters contain identical language when discussing the wide-ranging economic impacts of the Petitioner's activities, which undermines their probative value”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“not supported by details showing their basis or a sufficient explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“identical language ... undermines their probative value”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“General claims about the growth of the legal services industry ... do not help establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has the potential to impact”
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
- 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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
1,312coded 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 relied on Hamal v. DHS to discount client letters containing identical boilerplate language about economic impact, treating this as undermining probative value; the third Dhanasar prong (on which the Director also found against the Petitioner) was expressly reserved as unnecessary to the outcome.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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