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 planned to establish her own legal consultancy in Florida, advising U.S. small and medium businesses on internationalization strategies and helping companies navigate Brazilian business, tax, and contractual law.
Field: legal consulting / international business law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found insufficient post-baccalaureate experience due to miscalculating degree date; AAO found Petitioner's 2012 bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience satisfied the advanced degree equivalency requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“These statements are generalized and not supported in the record by a specific plan to generate investments”
“The financial forecast data, however, does not appear to have any basis; absent a specific plan to generate investments, it is not evident that her company will generate revenue to create any jobs.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact the legal consulting field or the U.S . economy more broadly”
“it is not clear what initiative investors looking to expand their wealth would have to invest in small businesses in economically depressed areas”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the financial forecast data, however, does not appear to have any basis”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence did not establish how her endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner argued the Director applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard, but the AAO found this assertion unelaborated and unsupported, and did not otherwise address it. The AAO also noted an internal tension in the Petitioner's theory: claiming both a HUBZone/economically-depressed-area focus and simultaneously courting wealthy foreign investors, which it found inconsistent and unsupported.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to substantiate national importance: HUBZone/investment claims were internally inconsistent and unsupported, and job-creation/economic-impact projections lacked evidentiary basis.
Support economic-impact projections (jobs, investment, regional benefit) with concrete, documented plans and data—not generalized assertions of expertise or contacts.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · geographic_or_shortage_area
mixed
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