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-trained finance/accounting professional working as a financial representative in Florida, proposed to found and lead a financial consulting agency serving Latin American and Brazilian companies and small/medium-sized businesses in the U.S.
Field: finance/accounting consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree equivalent professional (bachelor's plus five years progressive experience); this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The petitioner's work experience only shows potential impact at the local level in Brazil.”
“Rather, these materials amount to background information about the general subject.”
“The Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor would have a significant impact beyond a limited number of his company's customers.”
“The Petitioner did not establish that these figures are significant in an industry that, according to business plan, employs about 500,000 people in the United States”
“But the Petitioner does not explain how these efforts will have effects so significant as to give the endeavor national importance.”
“The Petitioner's assertions about the cumulative impact of individuals in his field do not establish the broader implications of his proposed endeavor in particular.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan did not exist until after the Petitioner filed the petition”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The record does not otherwise emphasize benefit to U.S. businesses seeking to invest in, or expand into, Brazil.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these materials amount to background information about the general subject”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO considered the post-filing-date business plan despite agreeing it could not itself establish eligibility as of filing, treating it as the 'most detailed explanation' of the endeavor; AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not making unnecessary findings.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers