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 lawyer, initially proposed to work as a legal professional/lawyer in the United States, later attempting (via RFE response) to shift to founding and serving as CEO of her own legal/business/financial consulting company.
Field: law / legal and business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's endeavor as initially stated includes only vague references and generic descriptions of the occupation of legal professional/lawyer and the field of law”
“While such an endeavor may impact her employers or the individual clients she assists, the national importance of this work has not been adequately explained or substantiated”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the Petitioner introduced a new proposed endeavor in response to the RFE rather than establishing the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor described in the initial petition”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“his letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation of the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's plans to direct a newly established company... constitute a material change to the proposed endeavor as initially stated”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in her 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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
AAO found the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to her proposed endeavor between the initial filing (practicing law/legal professional) and the RFE response (founding and serving as CEO of her own consulting company), citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak, and evaluated only the original endeavor, which it found failed prong 1 as vague and lacking demonstrated national-level economic impact.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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