The petitioner, a lawyer, proposed to counsel and advise companies, individuals, and institutions on legal best practices for safeguarding financial stability in dealing with digital assets, either through his own consulting firm or through employment at a U.S. law firm.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record establishes that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may benefit either himself and his legal services consulting firm...or any other employer who may hire or rehire him”

“the opinion letter conflates factors for determining whether a proposed endeavor may have substantial merit with its conclusory statements that the proposed endeavor has national importance”

“the record does not support the conclusion, that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not inform how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and its broader implications”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained language conflating prong-one national-importance analysis with prong-two and exceptional-ability criteria, but held this was harmless error because SCOPS had actually ruled in the petitioner's favor on those other issues. The AAO also rejected reliance on the petitioner's cited unpublished AAO decisions involving quantum physics, semiconductor development, and organic chemistry endeavors, noting non-precedent decisions do not bind future adjudications and their subject matter was not shown relevant to a legal-services 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(c)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of O-R-E-

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