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 run his own consulting firm providing legal and business consulting services connecting Brazilian and American companies, initially focused on labor, civil, and environmental law issues.
Field: international legal/business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Director erred; Petitioner established foreign bachelor's degree equivalent plus five years of progressive experience, qualifying as an advanced degree professional; Director's finding withdrawn.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“a change in the nature of that endeavor from legal consulting to business consulting is material to eligibility for the waiver”
“they do not discuss the impact of the Petitioner's consulting services on his clients or to the consulting industry”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its revenue and tax projections or adequately support how these projections will be realized”
“we find that the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond his clients”
“the expert opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its revenue and tax projections or adequately support how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“they do not discuss the impact of the Petitioner's consulting services on his clients or to the consulting industry”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's threshold EB-2 finding, holding the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, but still dismissed the appeal on prong 1 national importance grounds; AAO also declined to consider a materially changed description of the endeavor raised in RFE response, citing Matter of Izummi's material change doctrine.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
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