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 licensed attorney in both the United States and Turkey, worked as an international legal consultant providing legal services to employers and their clients.
Field: international legal consulting / law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work to date has been national in scope by extending beyond her employers and their clients”
“such background alone does not inherently meet the national interest threshold and does not demonstrate the substantial prospective national benefit of her employment”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the prospective benefit of her proposed employment would be national in scope and would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree compared to available United States workers having the same minimum qualifications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters from the Petitioner's employers, colleagues and former professors were similar in substance, and the Director was not obligated to provide a separate analysis of each one”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“describe her academic performance, employment history... such background alone does not inherently meet the national interest threshold”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner resubmits evidence and provides a statement... [which] does not address or contest the specific deficiencies the Director found”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“her background as a licensed attorney in both the United States and her native Turkey... does not inherently meet the national interest threshold”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Record of success insufficient · p1 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
Notable
Procedurally unusual: this is a revocation-of-approval case (not an initial denial appeal) remanded once before by AAO in 2021; because the petition was approved in May 2016 before Matter of Dhanasar issued, AAO applied the older NYSDOT three-part framework rather than Dhanasar. The AAO expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fresh 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 Ho
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