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 Brazilian-trained lawyer, proposed to work as a lawyer and legal consultant in the U.S., advising companies (including those expanding to Latin America) on business, labor, civil, international, and digital law and cross-border transactions.
Field: law / legal consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor of law degree plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's role as a lawyer is likely to be most immediately helpful and transformative to her employer and its clients”
“the Petitioner refers on appeal only generally to "the previously submitted documents" as establishing "past achievements," rather than to any specific evidence in the record”
“several of these objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of an attorney”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's general, conclusory statements to the contrary are insufficient to meet her burden of proof”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“does not contain evidence that the Petitioner's past achievements resulted in a broad impact on the legal field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
- other · discounted
“the plan does not establish how these objectives may result in a broad impact on the legal field or U.S. business interests”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- occupation not profession · p1 — the occupation itself does not require an advanced degree
Notable
AAO expressly distinguishes past achievements/skills (prong 2 focus) from the proposed endeavor's national importance (prong 1 focus), and cites Matter of Dhanasar's own facts (aerospace engineer's specific research endeavor) via a footnote referencing USCIS Policy Manual to illustrate the endeavor-vs-occupation distinction.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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