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 lawyer, proposed to operate a law firm specializing in international business law, providing cross-border legal services such as contract negotiation, regulatory compliance, immigration support, and foreign investment advising between the U.S. and Brazil.
Field: international business law / cross-border legal services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS concluded, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's equivalent degree in law plus more than five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“he has not offered sufficient, specific evidence establishing a substantial economic impact directly attributable to his business to demonstrate that it rises to the level of national importance”
“the business plan is not accompanied by corroborating evidence to show how his endeavor would substantially impact job creation and economic growth”
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have broader implications”
“similar conclusory statements in the letter are not corroborated by other evidence in the record”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan is not accompanied by corroborating evidence to show how his endeavor would substantially impact job creation and economic growth”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“similar conclusory statements in the letter are not corroborated by other evidence in the record”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
Notable
AAO expressly rejected Petitioner's argument that SCOPS misapplied Dhanasar by imposing a retrospective evidentiary standard, finding the denial's language ('will offer', 'stand to have') was forward-looking. The decision also contains an internal pronoun inconsistency, referring to the Petitioner as both 'he' and 'her' in the same paragraph, likely an OCR/drafting artifact from template reuse.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
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