dismissedMAY062024_06B52032024-05-06 · 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 lawyer specializing in social security law, sought to establish and operate a consultancy business in Florida offering immigration status regularization and business development assistance to Latino immigrants.
Field: immigration consultancy / law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Director determined that the endeavor of operating a consultancy business focused on Latino communities to assist with their immigration status and advise on immigrant business ventures would not result in broad economic implications, such as having significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in an economically depressed area.”
“The Director highlighted the lack of objective evidence to support the staffing projections and figures proposed in the Petitioner's business plan as well as the limited impact of her endeavor.”
“the Petitioner still has not provided corroborating evidence that her company's staffing level and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits regionally or to the United States”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“there is no evidence that the Petitioner has previously attempted or succeeded in launching new business ventures for companies or individuals other than her own law firm.”
“the record lacks documentation of any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, which might include the establishment of the business as a legal entity, registration of the business, securing any necessary fonding, renting or purchasing physical space for the business, and the hiring of employees and contractors.”
“The Petitioner's business plan itself provides various financial forecasts and staffing projections but lacks independent and corroborating evidence to support these projections.”
“the company representatives do not discuss specifics of the business proposal and the Petitioner has not shown other corroborating evidence that these interests will result in sales, contracts, or clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“lacks independent and corroborating evidence to support these projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the company representatives do not discuss specifics of the business proposal”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record includes more information about her achievements as a lawyer than about the prospects of her proposed business”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,312coded 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
Director had found Petitioner well-positioned under prong 2 without analysis; AAO reversed that finding de novo, disagreeing with the Director's favorable but unexplained conclusion, while still affirming the ultimate denial. Also notable use of Flores v. Garland footnote on discretionary nature of NIW.
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
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers