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 sought to establish a Florida-based legal consulting firm offering corporate advisory, tax, and customs/trade compliance services to Brazilian companies expanding into the U.S. and U.S. companies expanding into Brazil/Latin America.
Field: legal consulting (international business, tax, customs/trade compliance) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“this is not probative, credible evidence that helps show that the proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly impact the legal services industry”
“the legal services she will provide to a niche market of Brazilian companies or investors will have direct and indirect financial impacts to reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
“does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate her endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that the specific proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this is not probative, credible evidence that helps show that the proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly impact the legal services industry”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she then references the letters and supporting business plans from clients to demonstrate those clients' direct employment generation and revenue creation. However, this is not probative”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that establish proper cause to reopen the proceedings”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Motion to reopen following a prior appeal dismissal; AAO addressed only Dhanasar prong 1 (national importance), having reserved the other prongs in the earlier decision, and found the newly submitted professional plan, business plan, and client letters insufficient to show error, emphasizing the niche/local nature of the Brazilian client base as failing to establish national economic impact.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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