dismissedJUL032024_02B52032024-07-03 · 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, proposed to establish and serve as CEO of a legal consulting company assisting U.S. companies entering the Brazilian market and Brazilian companies entering the U.S. market.
Field: legal consulting (international law, tax, and business law) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, and this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“General claims about the growth of the legal services industry and the importance of trade between the United States and Brazil do not help establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has the potential to impact the U.S. economy, trade relations, or the legal field on a scale commensurate with national importance.”
“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.”
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.”
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
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence of a petitioner's skills, expertise, and record of success generally relates to the second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“General claims about the growth of the legal services industry and the importance of trade... 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
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
The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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