The Petitioner, a legal consultant, initially proposed to work as an immigration paralegal or independent legal consultant for U.S. companies, and later (in RFE response and on appeal) claimed she would instead open and operate her own immigration consulting firm.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show, through supporting documentation, how her specific employment services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective employer(s)”

“the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”

“The Petitioner, however, must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular paralegal and legal consulting services rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field”

“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of working as a paralegal for current counsel or as a legal consultant for an unidentified employer rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The Petitioner initially discussed the importance of the legal consulting services sector, referenced recommendation letters from colleagues”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner... provided copies of articles... on the topics of the legal profession... rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · ignored

  “we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating her own business”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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

Notable

The Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor mid-adjudication—from working as a paralegal/independent legal consultant to opening her own immigration consulting firm—and the AAO refused to consider this new business under the rule against considering facts arising after filing (citing Izummi and Bardouille), treating it as an independent, alternate basis for dismissal alongside the prong-one national importance failure.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Bardouille
• Matter of Izummi
• 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