dismissedJUL162025_01B52032025-07-16 · appeal

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 United States as a strategic and legal consultant facilitating the leasing, sale, and purchase of aircraft and aviation equipment between U.S. and Brazilian companies.

Field: aviation legal and strategic consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner's Brazilian law degree was only bachelor's-equivalent, requiring five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience to qualify as an advanced degree equivalent; the record contained gaps, unsupported contract work, a contradictory nonimmigrant visa application in which she claimed 'no' prior employment, and lacked the required employer letters, so she failed to establish the requisite five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The recommendation letters did not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States with any specificity to support its national importance.”

“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a petitioner's proposed endeavor without evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's specific work.”

“the Petitioner does not explain and does not provide corroborating evidence demonstrating her endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers and at a level that is significant”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish how much progressive work experience she gained after she received her degree in May 2012, if any”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“The recommendation letters did not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States with any specificity to support its national importance.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“do not address how the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor has broader implications within the field consistent with its national importance”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“these announcements, reports, and articles discuss the aviation industry itself and its importance, and do not address how the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor has broader implications”
AAO decision text

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

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 withdrew SCOPS' favorable finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional, finding instead that she failed the underlying EB-2 threshold due to contradictory employment history (including a prior nonimmigrant visa application in which she claimed no prior employment), and separately found the national importance prong unmet, reserving prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary to reach; both the threshold failure and the prong-1 failure are treated as independently dispositive bases for dismissal.

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)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer