dismissedJUN082021_05B52032021-06-08 · 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, an international tax advisor with over 20 years of experience in Brazil, proposed to continue consulting U.S. and multinational companies on Brazilian and Latin American tax, legal, and business compliance issues, and later stated he intended to open his own consulting business in the U.S.
Field: international tax law / cross-border tax advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“Here, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his providing international tax law services rather than the national importance of the trade, legal, tax, and real estate fields or industries.”
“He did not, for instance, show any credible business revenue projections to substantiate that his company 's future business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits”
“the Petitioner has not offered evidence, for instance, that the unidentified area where his company would operate is economically depressed”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential customers... to impact the tax field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered evidence, for instance, that the unidentified area where his company would operate is economically depressed”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“He did not, for instance, show any credible business revenue projections to substantiate that his company's future business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience, education, and training in his field relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
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
1,312coded 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 expressly declined to reach prongs two and three, treating the prong-one national importance failure as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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