dismissedJUL152021_02B52032021-07-15 · 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 self-employed consultant specializing in Brazilian consumer behavior, proposed to advise U.S. companies seeking to enter Brazilian/Latin American markets and to train U.S. executives through his own 'Agile Training Methods' via consulting, lectures, and seminars.

Field: Brazilian consumer behavior / market-entry consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed consulting work has implications beyond any individual client or company at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor”

“he has not demonstrated that the specific work he proposes to undertake has broader implications to the U.S. export and tourism industries”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's consulting services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“he has not shown that his consulting activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed consulting work has implications beyond any individual client or company”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“he has not demonstrated that the specific work he proposes to undertake has broader implications to the U.S. export and tourism industries”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“we note that while some of the emails indicate an interest in having the Petitioner lecture at their respective institutions, most simply acknowledge the Petitioner's proposed work”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

2,501coded 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

AAO expressly notes that petitioner-submitted post-filing emails from universities and executives cannot establish eligibility because eligibility must be shown as of filing under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1), and separately observes that interest evidence properly belongs to prong two, not prong one's national-importance inquiry.

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)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific consulting endeavor's impact extended beyond individual clients to a national-scale effect on U.S. economy, exports, or employment.

Transferable lesson

Quantify and document the specific endeavor's broader, national-scale economic or field-wide impact—not just client testimonials or generic industry importance.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer