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 sought to provide legal consultancy services in the United States through the operation of his own business in Florida.
Field: legal consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Highly unusual procedural posture: the Director's denial decision analyzed the wrong endeavor entirely (pilot and pilot instructor) instead of the Petitioner's actual claimed endeavor (legal consultancy services), and referenced evidence (a pilot's license) not present in the record. The AAO remanded because the Director's decision did not relate to the case at hand and failed to adequately explain reasons for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(i), preventing meaningful appellate review. No prong was substantively analyzed by the AAO itself; the remand instructs the Director to redo the entire analysis on the correct endeavor.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision analyzed an endeavor (pilot/instructor) entirely absent from the record instead of the Petitioner's actual endeavor (legal consultancy business), rendering the decision unreviewable and requiring remand.
Ensure the adjudicator's decision matches the record; on appeal, flag any mismatch between the endeavor analyzed and the endeavor actually proposed as a due-process/explanation defect.
vague
other
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