dismissedOCT202023_02B52032023-10-20 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 lawyer and investment consultant, proposed to open a company in Florida offering investment consulting services to foreign clients seeking to invest in U.S. real estate, projecting job creation and tax revenue.
Field: investment consulting / tax, business, and real estate law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to reflect that the area where it will operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in the area”
“these statements are not supported by financial projections”
“much of the content of the expert opinion letters is lacking in relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient”
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not support that the creation of eleven additional jobs in this sector...will have a substantial economic benefit”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letters is lacking in relevance and probative value”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director”
AAO decision text
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO noted authenticity/authorship concerns about one advisory opinion letter, observing its stated credentials appeared copied verbatim from another professor's letter, raising 'significant questions regarding the authorship of this letter.' AAO declined to reach prongs two and three as unnecessary given dispositive first-prong failure.
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 Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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