The Petitioner proposed to work as an independent legal consultant, providing legal services to U.S. companies and entities doing business in Brazil and South America, drawing on his experience in administrative and constitutional law, public procurement, and litigation.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“he has not shown that his legal consultant business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States”

“he has not submitted documentary evidence that would demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's unde1iakings would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”

“the issue here is not the value of the legal industry or the impact of consulting on our country's economy, but rather whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor... rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “he has not submitted documentary evidence that would demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  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 AAO includes a footnote explicitly clarifying that the relevant inquiry is not the value of the legal industry generally but the specific endeavor's national importance, directly targeting the field-vs-endeavor conflation. The decision also uses the boilerplate phrase 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision' despite resting solely on prong one, since prongs two and three were expressly not reached.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Poursina v. USCIS
• Section 291 of the Act

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