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 develop a legal consulting firm specializing in legal and commercial advising for international trade clients, with offices in Utah, Florida, and Georgia.
Field: legal consulting / international trade law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, based on his foreign bachelor's equivalent in law plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Although we recognize the importance of legal professionals, merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his business plan and his own statements, that his company's staffing level and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits regionally or to the United States as a whole.”
“the plan by itself does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion and recommendation letters discuss the Petitioner's successful handling of past projects...but do not specifically address the innovative nature of his methods”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not provided independent and objective support for claims made in the plan”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters only address his past accomplishments...but they do not demonstrate national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these reports bring awareness to issues relevant to legal consulting...but do not specifically discuss the impact of the Petitioner's consulting services”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
Notable
In a footnote, the AAO explicitly disagreed with the Director's unreasoned finding that the second prong was met, stating it would be an additional ground for ineligibility in future proceedings, yet formally reserved ruling on prongs 2 and 3 since prong 1 alone was dispositive.
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 E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers