The petitioner, a historian, proposed to found and act as CEO of a Massachusetts business providing expert witness testimony and Brazil country-condition reports to assist immigrants (particularly Brazilian victims of domestic violence and trafficking) with asylum and related immigration cases, alongside a secondary, less-documented market-analysis advisory service for U.S. and Brazilian businesses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Instead of focusing on the importance of a field or the need for workers in a specific industry, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's work establishing an expert witness services business for low-income immigrants would impact the immigration and human rights fields more broadly, rather than benefitting her business and clients.”

“The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence demonstrating that her business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the United States and the communities it will serve.”

“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The submission of letters from experts supporting a petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “The industry reports and articles submitted describe the benefits of immigration and do not discuss any projected benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain or provide evidence showing that the letter of intent is from an interested government or quasi-governmental entity”

  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 acknowledged a secondary proposed endeavor (market analysis advisory services) but declined to evaluate its merit or national importance due to insufficient descriptive evidence, limiting its analysis to the primary expert-witness endeavor; it also clarified that letters attesting to the petitioner's research/communication skills spoke to prong 2, not prong 1's national importance requirement.

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
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-

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