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 former labor lawyer in Brazil, proposed to create her own U.S. human resources consulting company, initially providing consulting services herself and eventually expanding to offer training, lectures, and staffing on workplace diversity, inclusion, and safety matters to client businesses.
Field: human resources management/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found, though the Director had not addressed it, that the Petitioner's Brazilian bachelor of law degree plus five years of progressive experience satisfied the advanced degree requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“her human resources management services stand to sufficiently extend beyond the businesses that might employ her, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not demonstrate, for instance, how her human resources management services stand to sufficiently extend beyond the businesses that might employ her”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
The record contains two differently-titled and oddly dated planning documents (a 'Professional Plan' dated June 2021 and a 'Personal Plan' dated November 2020) describing overlapping but not identical endeavors. The AAO also declined new letters submitted for the first time on appeal under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena, and closed with unusual boilerplate stating each reason was an 'independent and alternate basis' despite resolving the case solely on prong one.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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