The Petitioner, a lawyer, proposed to work as a law consultant advising corporations on labor, tax, and corporate law issues related to expanding business between the United States and Latin American companies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“they do not address any national or even global implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, or other broader implications it would have in his field”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact legal consulting more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“when assessing national importance, we do not look to the importance of an industry or national interests in general, but instead "focus[] on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“Neither the Petitioner nor Professor ... specify how the Petitioner's work will result in significant employment of United States workers or have other positive economic effects beyond the individual companies”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not address any national or even global implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, or other broader implications it would have in his field”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we do not look to the importance of an industry or national interests in general, but instead focus on the specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “none of the articles mention the Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”

  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
• 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to note the discretionary nature of NIW grants, joining other circuits on this point.

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. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• 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