NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP252024_06B52032024-09-25 · 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 Brazilian attorney, proposed to start a legal/business/customs consulting firm helping Brazilian and American companies navigate trade, tax, and legal systems to facilitate cross-border commerce and investment.

Field: legal/business/customs consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not in dispute on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we concur with the Director's determination that the record does not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link her specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth”
“her objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of a legal and business consultant rather than establishing that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
“general assertions about her company's potential impact are not supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions”
“the multipliers apply to broad categories of businesses, rather than to the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

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
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the claims made in the business plan are not supported by objective corroborating evidence”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters from the Petitioner's investors are applicable to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the letters were not supported by other corroborating evidence to support their projected job creation”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “the multipliers apply to broad categories of businesses, rather than to the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
    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 →

Notable

AAO explicitly reallocates evidence the Petitioner offered under prong 1 (investor letters, professional experience/reputation) to prong 2, but declines to reach prong 2 at all since prong 1 failure was dispositive; illustrates cross-prong evidence categorization without cross-prong 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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer