dismissedAPR162025_04B52032025-04-16 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to work as a financial planner and analyst operating his own financial consulting company focused on providing budgeting, forecasting, and compliance services to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Field: financial planning and analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the case studies establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, not its broader impact.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections, nor does it explain the basis for the financial projections.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that these "ripple effects," which are oftentimes significantly attenuated and unconnected with a particular endeavor, establish that his endeavor will result in "substantial economic effects"”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections, nor does it explain the basis for the financial projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not establish the national importance of his endeavor, as they primarily focus on the Petitioner's expertise without addressing the prospective impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained, they do not establish that his company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
1,312coded 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 noted as an independent basis for dismissal that Petitioner failed to identify any specific error in the Director's decision, merely disagreeing generally, citing Matter of Valencia; nonetheless proceeded to address the merits.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
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