dismissedSEP182023_01B52032023-09-18 · appeal · Nebraska 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 and entrepreneur, sought to operate her own U.S. management consulting company providing legal and tax advisory services to help American investors and companies navigate Brazilian and Latin American tax systems.

Field: legal/tax consulting for Latin American investment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor had implications beyond her self-owned company, its business partners, alliances, clients, or her workplace”

“Neither the letters nor any other evidence within the record provides insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to build a management consulting company...will positively impact the region or the industry beyond any clients”

“General assertions about her company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions”

“the growth, revenue, and hiring projections provided in the business plan are not accompanied by an explanation of the sources used for those calculations”

“his findings stem from the significance of entrepreneurship...The letter therefore does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“General assertions about her company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“Neither the letters nor any other evidence within the record provides insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor...will positively impact the region or the industry beyond any clients”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience is not relevant to the first part of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“we examine the endeavor itself to evaluate its broader impact”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The letter therefore does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work”
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
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
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

Counsel argued USCIS applied an incorrect, stricter-than-preponderance standard of proof; the AAO rejected this, reaffirming the Chawathe preponderance standard and noting counsel's assertions do not constitute evidence.

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 E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer