The Petitioner described two potential paths: continuing work as a judicial/legal clerk assisting with legal research and administrative filings, or alternatively working as an international trade consultant helping U.S. and Brazilian companies expand into each other's markets.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the passage above describes the general duties of a judicial law clerk but gives no specific details about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the legal and construction industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient and consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we also cannot conclude that she meets the second prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “her professional plan offers little insight into the specific aspects of the endeavor that she intends to pursue.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “she does not further explain how this project ... has national implications that rise to the level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided information sufficient to illustrate how she will realize her goal of offering international trade consulting services.”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

Notable

The AAO affirmatively withdrew the Director's favorable finding on Dhanasar prong one (national importance), reversing course against the Petitioner despite the Director having conceded that prong below. The decision also highlights an internal inconsistency: the Petitioner presented two divergent, unreconciled proposed endeavors (judicial law clerk vs. international trade consultant), which the AAO treated as undermining specificity under Matter of Ho.

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
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
• The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
• The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp