The Petitioner, an agribusiness executive from Brazil with experience in the seed industry, proposed to work in the United States as a consultant providing organizational and consulting services to unnamed clients in agribusiness.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“A review of the record indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not sufficiently defined to establish the potential economic or industry impacts.”

“The Petitioner relies on the importance of the seed industry, and more broadly agriculture, rather than on his own potential impact on a specific project or projects within the United States.”

“His endeavor appears to be a single person consulting business that would not employ additional U.S. workers.”

“the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's nebulous role as a consultant for an unspecified company or companies would have an appreciable impact on the economy of the United States or the field of agribusiness.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“Without a clearly defined scope and objective, the Petitioner is unable to establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“The record does not reflect sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed consultancy business.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated an urgent national interest in his own contributions to achieve his aim, nor has he shown that he offers innovations or other contributions that would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available.”

“the evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “Absent the transcript of the Petitioner's undergraduate degree demonstrating four years of study, he has not established that he received a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The evaluator appears to have made this determination based on the issuance of a diploma, rather than a combination of examination of the degree and the Petitioner's transcript.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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
• Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
• U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on both the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification (foreign equivalency degree evaluation deemed insufficient absent transcript) and on national importance, then went on to independently analyze and fail all three Dhanasar prongs despite the threshold failure alone being potentially sufficient to dismiss.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 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