dismissedSEP192024_06B52032024-09-19 · 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 consultant specializing in commercial/public procurement law, proposed to practice law in the U.S. (after passing the bar) and provide legal consulting services in bids, contracts, and related areas.
Field: legal consulting / commercial (mercantile/trade) law, public bids and procurement · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Although the Petitioner discusses the value and importance of legal consultancy services and its impact on the U.S. economy and society, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession.”
“The record in its totality does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective employers or clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner did not show that her proposed endeavor would result in significant job growth or "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the record did not contain corroborating evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's work has potential implications that are of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“correspondence from two individuals discussing possible job offers”
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
2,501coded 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 →
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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