dismissedMAY012023_03B52032023-05-01 · appeal · Nebraska 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 lawyer, proposed to provide legal advisory services in corporate, tax, labor, and compliance law to U.S. businesses engaged in cross-border transactions with Brazil and Latin America.
Field: law (corporate law, tax law, labor law, cross-border Brazilian legal advisory) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future U.S. employer or legal clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of lawyers.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“The Petitioner's claims relating to her knowledge and record of success in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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 Director found substantial merit satisfied but not national importance; AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but affirmed denial solely on national importance, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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