dismissedOCT232023_01B52032023-10-23 · 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 legal analyst with over 10 years of experience in Brazilian civil and tax law, proposed to form her own consulting company in Florida to advise U.S. businesses and law firms on Brazilian legal and tax matters.
Field: Brazilian tax law / legal consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner does not explain how these growth trends in law firms demonstrate that her proposed endeavor is of national importance”
“The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”
“Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients”
“The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.”
“he does not specifically describe or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or elaborate on how it will have a prospective impact on the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework...The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to shortages and trends in the field generally, rather than her specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- motion resubmission · discounted
“On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence.”
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
- 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
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 explicitly notes in a footnote that even if it had reached prongs 2 and 3, it would still have dismissed the appeal, effectively pre-emptively addressing the reserved prongs without formal analysis.
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
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