The Petitioner sought to continue working as an in-house legal analyst for multinational companies before launching his own consulting firm advising U.S. and foreign entities on cross-border transactions, international law, tax planning, and foreign direct investment.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not sufficiently articulated or documented how his legal analyst and business management activities would broadly impact his field.”

“the Petitioner does not show that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and clientele to impact his field or the nation more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy... would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “he does not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within his prospective endeavor in the United States.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's skills and knowledge in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework... The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “We acknowledge the articles and opinion pieces provided by the Petitioner that highlight the importance of the international business and legal industries in the United States.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO expressly noted the Petitioner's experience-based arguments (nearly 20 years' career experience, methodology saving millions) were relevant to prong two but not to the national-importance analysis under prong one, which was dispositive.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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