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 lawyer, proposed to work in the U.S. as an international legal consultant advising on civil and international private law, banking, insurance, real estate, and cross-border contracts, particularly helping U.S. companies operate in the Brazilian market.
Field: international/legal consultancy (civil and international private law) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on her law degree and five years of progressive experience under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); AAO states the record supports this determination.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“neither the updated business plan, nor the reference and expert opinion letters attesting to the Petitioner's knowledge of law and professional achievements include details about her proposed endeavor.”
“while the Petitioner's online publications discuss digital transformation, personal data processing, and alternative conflict resolution, they do not address her proposed undertaking.”
“she does not specifically explain how her work as a legal consultant might lead to employment of U.S. workers or bring about other substantial positive economic effects”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work but "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“neither the updated business plan...include details about her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the reference and expert opinion letters attesting to the Petitioner's knowledge of law and professional achievements include details about her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they do not address her proposed undertaking.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
Notable
AAO footnote cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as joining other circuits in holding that NIW grant/denial is a discretionary determination unreviewable for abuse of discretion in the usual sense.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to link evidence (letters, articles, business plan) to her specific proposed endeavor's prospective impact; claims of national/economic significance were conclusory and unsubstantiated, defeating national importance under prong 1.
Define a concrete, bounded endeavor and ensure all corroborating evidence directly addresses its specific prospective national-scale impact, not general credentials or industry importance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · field_advancement
person_focused
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