The petitioner, a lawyer, planned to establish a consulting firm in Florida advising U.S. businesses on Brazilian law and on trading and direct foreign investment projects related to entering the Brazilian market.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not demonstrate, however, that his work would extend beyond his company's individual clients to impact his field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner, or otherwise address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”

“The business plan does not include an explanation of how its financial projections were calculated or comparative data on how its projected profits compare to other consulting firms.”

“The Petitioner has not established that his company has significant potential to employ United States workers or would have other substantial positive economic effects indicative of national importance.”

“Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The business plan does not include an explanation of how its financial projections were calculated or comparative data”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “none of the articles mention the Petitioner, or otherwise address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “The business plan does not include an explanation of how its financial projections were calculated”

  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

Notable

Petitioner argued Director misapplied preponderance standard and improperly narrowed national importance analysis to job creation/economic impact rather than considering government/national initiatives (US-Brazil trade partnerships); AAO rejected this, reiterating that national importance analysis focuses on the specific endeavor, not general field or country-level trade trends.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• 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