The Petitioner, a Brazilian entrepreneur, sought to grow his existing U.S. food/beverage and restaurant businesses, develop new clients and investment projects, and help U.S. companies and investors navigate Brazilian business and tax laws.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his companies and his future clientele to impact his field or the food and beverage industry more broadly”

“The Petitioner, however, is only a ten percent co-owner and shareholder of this company and the record does not show that the capacity in which he proposes to work renders him mainly responsible for its business operations.”

“he has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's business projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the record does not show that the capacity in which he proposes to work renders him mainly responsible for its business operations”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's skills and knowledge in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO treats general articles about immigrant entrepreneurship and globalization benefits as supporting only 'substantial merit' but not national importance, distinguishing field-level significance from the specific endeavor. The petitioner's 10% ownership stake in a company employing 32 (then 12) U.S. workers is cited as insufficient to show he would be 'mainly responsible' for its operations.

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.

• Poursina v. USCIS

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