dismissedMAR092022_02B52032022-03-09 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 entrepreneur with an IT consulting company, proposed to continue working in the U.S. as an entrepreneur providing IT consulting, business advice, and cross-border transaction facilitation between the U.S., Brazil, and Latin America.

Field: information technology / IT consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Petitioner was found to qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”

“the Petitioner has not shown that his undertaking "offers benefits that extend beyond his consulting company to impact the field more broadly."”

“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to substantiate them”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his innovations will be on such a scale as to impact the national economy directly or indirectly”

“the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his current company and its clientele”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters do not sufficiently establish the prospective impact of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will focus on”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to substantiate them”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“he has not provided details concerning how he would do this nor has he identified any U.S. clients or companies”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found national importance unmet, expressly reserving opinion on prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of V-K-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific IT consulting endeavor would extend beyond his own company/clients to impact the broader economy or field at a nationally important scale.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with quantifiable, endeavor-specific projections (jobs, revenue, client scope) rather than personal credentials or generic industry-shortage data.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer