dismissedAPR112024_04B52032024-04-11 · 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 proposed to work as a personal financial adviser, providing financial planning and advisory services to individuals and small/medium-sized businesses in the United States.
Field: personal financial advising · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director determined Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree holder; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's endeavor would have a limited impact, effecting mostly the Petitioner's prospective employers and customers in the local community”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate that his work as a personal financial adviser would result in an impact of regional or national importance”
“showing that there are benefits to using a personal financial adviser and/or creating a financial plan is not sufficient to demonstrate that the specific endeavor is likely to result in "substantial positive economic effects"”
“he lists more objective data which illustrates the growth of the "global financial services market" but does not mention the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience and qualifications are relevant factors in a second prong, rather than a first prong discussion”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he offers no evidence to support this assertion; instead, he lists more objective data which illustrates the growth of the "global financial services market"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,589coded 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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary, citing INS v. Bagamasbad; the decision emphasizes that the Petitioner improperly conflated prong 2 (personal credentials/past achievements) evidence with the prong 1 national importance 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)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
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