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 lawyer, planned to open her own legal consulting firm in the U.S. advising American companies on legal and regulatory requirements for entering the Brazilian market.
Field: legal consulting (Brazil-U.S. cross-border business) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish 5 years of progressive post-bachelor's experience in the specialty; employer letters lacked specific dates, duties, and independent corroboration, and were inconsistent with her own petition and resume.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not persuasively explained, and the evidence does not demonstrate, how her proposed work would have the broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. economy, and international trade”
“the record does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and need to employ additional employees, and thus does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ workers”
“the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate these projections, such as underlying independent basis for the firm's claimed net worth”
“Under Dhanasar's first prong, at issue here, we evaluate whether the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has broader implications, rather than the general descriptions of work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“these letters mainly describe the Petitioner's credentials and the writers' working relationships with her ... and do not collectively demonstrate the required five years of qualifying experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The remaining letters are reference or recommendation letters from colleagues ... and as such given limited evidentiary weight.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and need to employ additional employees”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate these projections, such as underlying independent basis for the firm's claimed net worth and the source of the claimed sales and revenue”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO withdrew part of the Director's decision (finding academic record was in fact submitted) but still affirmed denial on independent grounds; AAO evaluated national importance prong on the merits as an alternative holding despite the dispositive threshold EB-2 failure, then declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary.
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. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Ho
- 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