dismissedAPR222021_02B52032021-04-22 · 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 manager, proposed to advise U.S. companies on growing their financial portfolios and profitability using his over 10 years of banking and financial services experience, while also training junior employees and managers.
Field: banking and financial services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not include supporting information or evidence to support his claims regarding the potential economic impact attributable to his undertaking”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) and/or their clients”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the record does not include supporting information or evidence to support his claims regarding the potential economic impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“considerations under Dhanasar's second prong ... The issue here under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed work”
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
- 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
2,501coded 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 explicitly frames its finding as an independent and alternate basis, though only prong 1 is actually analyzed; footnote clarifies that experience/expertise evidence belongs to prong 2, not prong 1.
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.
- 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