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 project management specialist with over 20 years of experience including work for the Brazilian government, proposed to offer project management and consulting services to U.S. companies, universities, and governments focused on environmental, urban planning, and infrastructure projects.
Field: project management / environmental and urban planning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner does not provide a business plan to describe how he intends to offer his services or identify potential clients.”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the initiative of infrastructure improvement, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner's personal statements are not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract”
“he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain how this course description demonstrates that his specific proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner does not provide a business plan to describe how he intends to offer his services or identify potential clients.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner does not explain how the new evidence, an updated system report regarding a past project in Brazil, demonstrates his eligibility”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Notable
AAO explicitly notes in a footnote that even if it had reached prongs two and three, it would still have dismissed the appeal, since the Director found prong 1 (national importance) and prong 3 unmet; this is a fallback/alternative holding referencing prong 3 without formal 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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to tie general infrastructure/environmental importance or field-level evidence to his specific proposed endeavor, lacking a business plan, clients, or concrete projects showing broader impact.
Support national importance with a concrete plan showing specific, scalable impact of the actual endeavor—not general field significance or personal credentials.
vague
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
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