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 conflict resolution specialist, sought to own and operate a U.S.-based mediation, conciliation, and arbitration company providing legal and dispute resolution services to Brazilian immigrants and U.S. businesses operating in Brazil.
Field: conflict resolution / mediation and conciliation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor of owning and operating a mediation and conciliation business largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not show how her services or business stand to sufficiently extend beyond these prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, abilities, and prior accomplishments relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not show how her services or business stand to sufficiently extend beyond these prospective clients”
AAO decision text - awards · ignored
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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 expressly declined to address the underlying EB-2 classification eligibility or the Director's third-prong analysis, noting the Director's decision contained no explanation for its third-prong finding, and dismissed on prong 1 alone as an independent basis.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her mediation business's impact extended beyond prospective clients/employees to a level of national importance; job/revenue projections deemed insufficiently substantial regionally or nationally.
Quantify and contextualize projected economic/employment impact against regional/national benchmarks; don't rely on personal credentials or bare growth projections to prove national importance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers