dismissedJUL212023_04B52032023-07-21 · 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 Brazilian commercial lawyer, proposed to work in the U.S. providing commercial legal advice, international business/marketing consulting, and possibly teaching and university research, though her description of the role shifted between filing and RFE response.
Field: commercial/international business law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its substantial merit and national importance.”
“she has not shown how her work in commercial law or business would have a demonstrable impact on the U.S. economy.”
“a shortage alone would not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States.”
“Much of the content of the letter is lacking relevance because it discusses the importance of the Petitioner's industry and occupation rather than addressing how the specific proposed endeavor would satisfy the national importance element”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“discusses the importance of the Petitioner's industry and occupation rather than addressing how the specific proposed endeavor would satisfy the national importance element”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,589coded 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
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor shifted substantially between the initial filing (focused on commercial legal advice) and the RFE response (focused on marketing/business development), which the AAO cited as evidence the endeavor was not clearly or consistently defined.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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