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.
A Brazilian-trained lawyer sought to work as managing partner of her own consulting firm advising U.S. companies on legal requirements, financial planning, and cross-border expansion into Brazil.
Field: legal consulting / cross-border business advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed eligibility as an advanced degree professional (bachelor's plus five years progressive experience), but experience letters from employers lacked specific dates/descriptions, colleague letters were afforded limited weight, and inconsistencies undermined reliability; no new evidence was submitted on motion to overcome these deficiencies.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of the documentation submitted addressed the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake or how the endeavor may have national or even global implications within a particular field”
“the Petitioner's business plan was not supported by independent evidence that corroborated her staffing projections or financial projections”
“they do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her future clients or employers to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters from the claimed employers lacked specific dates and descriptions of the work done by or with her”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's business plan was not supported by independent evidence that corroborated her staffing projections or financial projections”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“provided only generalized information regarding legal services and business”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's contentions merely reargue facts and issues we considered in our prior 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is the second round of combined motions in the same case; AAO again declined to reach prongs two and three under Bagamasbad, and separately declined to consider a belated exceptional-ability claim as waived under Matter of J-Y-C- since it was not raised before the Director.
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(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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