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 financial executive with over 25 years of experience, proposed to provide strategic financial advice, feasibility analysis, and investment planning for industrial businesses in the U.S., aiming to improve logistics, supply chain, and manufacturing efficiency.
Field: finance/accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree equivalent (bachelor's plus five years progressive experience).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential employer to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of strategic financial planning, rather than his specific proposed endeavor”
“these are general claims that are not supported by sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“Even considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we conclude that they do not support a finding”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- other · discounted
“a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · credited
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The AAO granted the motion to reopen after finding the Petitioner presented new facts, but ultimately dismissed the appeal on the same first-prong national importance ground as its prior decision. It also rejected as untimely several pieces of evidence (employment outlook survey, Executive Order, Fact Sheet) because they postdated the petition's filing.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod