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, an immigration attorney, proposed to continue providing personalized legal services to individual clients seeking visas and immigration benefits, including NIW and extraordinary-ability petitions.
Field: immigration law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“we are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in her field”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“her legal "work or services would impact the immigration field and/or a particular industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the clients she serves."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the aforementioned articles mention the Petitioner or her legal projects”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three, treating the national-importance failure as an independent and alternate dispositive basis. Notably rejected letters from third parties (colleagues/recruiters) as pertaining to prong two rather than the national-importance inquiry, and rejected a lawyer-shortage argument by noting labor shortages are addressed through the labor certification process itself.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
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