dismissedJUL192023_06B52032023-07-19 · 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 lawyer from Kazakhstan proficient in Russian and English, sought to work in the United States as an immigration legal assistant/paralegal.
Field: law (immigration law) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor has national importance”
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of projected U.S. economic impact or job creation resulting from her endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established that proficiency in these languages, individually or collectively, would result in her endeavor having broader implications for the region or nation”
“neither job offer indicates that the Petitioner's proposed positions as an "immigration legal assistant," as stated in one letter, or "immigration paralegal," as stated in the other letter, would have a global impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“more relevant to a prong two analysis and whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she has not established that her endeavor to be a Russian-speaking lawyer in the United States would have a substantial impact”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis; footnote suggests language skills and lack of U.S. law license would be more relevant to prong two, which was reserved.
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
- Chen v. INS
- 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