The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained lawyer, proposed to practice law in the United States across family, labor, contract, environmental, and animal-rights/conservation law, while leveraging her knowledge of the Brazilian legal system to assist U.S. businesses and advocate for public policy change.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we note that a shortage of workers within a given occupation does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important”

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“Her claims of future impact are numerous and far reaching, yet the specific endeavor lacks meaningful details”

“this data comes from macroeconomic studies, and does not directly address how her proposed endeavor would impact job creation”

“the effects of her legal work would be felt by her clients and perhaps their families, but would not sufficiently extend beyond the individuals she would be advising”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these opinions are relevant to Dhanasar's second prong ... but do not establish the national importance of her endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “this speaks to the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor but does not establish that her work as a lawyer would lead to the economic impact she describes”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “this evidence does not establish that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond her employer(s) or client(s)”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “we are not persuaded that the fruits of her proposed endeavor will have such far reaching implications as contemplated in Dhanasar's national importance analysis”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner relied heavily on a 'legal deserts' shortage argument (citing ABA statistics on counties lacking lawyers) and macroeconomic export/job-creation statistics untethered to her specific endeavor; the AAO explicitly rejected both as insufficiently tied to her individual proposed work, and separately clarified that the Director had erred by too narrowly focusing on her paralegal job offer rather than her broader proposed endeavor, though ultimately reached the same negative conclusion on national importance.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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