dismissedMAY202024_01B52032024-05-20 · 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 attorney, proposed to work in the U.S. as a legal consultant advising businesses and individuals on Brazilian labor, civil, social security, and commercial law, helping U.S. companies navigate doing business in Brazil.
Field: legal consulting / Brazilian and international business law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
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"”
“the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“the expert does not establish that the broader implications of the Petitioner's endeavor will extend beyond the benefits provided to his clients”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity resulting from his work as a legal consultant would rise to the level of having regional or national economic impacts”
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual legal consultant nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor generally cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past achievements”
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
- 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
AAO expressly declined to reach EB-2 exceptional-ability classification eligibility and Dhanasar prongs 2-3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance; notes that industry shortage arguments belong more properly to a prong 3 balancing analysis even though raised under prong 1.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
- 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