dismissedAUG012023_06B52032023-08-01 · 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 sought to work as an entrepreneur in finance, operating a company providing financial advisory, training, and budgeting/investment education to individuals and helping companies optimize capital structure, raise funds, and reduce debt.
Field: finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional based on combined education and experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that this undertaking has broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to those who participate in his training sessions or mentoring program”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient details of the basis for these projections or adequately explain how this revenue and staffing targets will be realized”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his company will employ a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient details of the basis for these projections or adequately explain how this revenue and staffing targets will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
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
1,358coded 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 →
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers