dismissedAPR202023_02B52032023-04-20 · 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 financial analyst and manager, initially proposed to complete a CGMA credential and continue working in finance to benefit her employer and the U.S.; in response to an RFE she instead described plans to register her own consulting company serving U.S. financial-market clients and create jobs.

Field: financial analysis and management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not elaborate on what her specific endeavor would entail and how she would "make a huge contribution to the development of this sector of the economy"”

“such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that her work stands to impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance.”

“she did not provide further details about where the company would operate, the types of jobs she would create, the number of employees she would hire, where the employees would work”

“the Petitioner's assertions in response to the RFE that she would register her own company, provide consulting services to multiple companies, and create jobs present a new set of facts.”

“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“neither letter addresses the "specific endeavor [she] proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“she did not provide further details about where the company would operate, the types of jobs she would create, the number of employees she would hire”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that her work stands to impact the broader field”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

The AAO invoked the material-change doctrine (Matter of Izummi/Katigbak) to disregard the Petitioner's RFE-response description of a new business venture as an impermissible new set of facts, then separately explained that even considering those facts, they were too vague to establish national importance. The AAO reserved opinion on threshold EB-2 eligibility and on prongs 2 and 3, and even on the 'substantial merit' half of prong 1, resolving the case solely on national importance.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer