dismissedAUG032023_01B52032023-08-03 · 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 tax analyst, sought to continue operating his own company in Florida providing financial and tax services to companies and individuals.
Field: tax and financial services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner eligible for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan provides no analysis or explanation of how these estimates were calculated”
“the unaudited financial statements for the business...are not verifiable evidence and reflect the statements of management”
“he 'will continue to work on nationally important projects,' but does not specify any particular potential projects”
“The fact that immigrant investors and trade with Brazil have an overall positive economic impact on the U.S. national economy does not establish that the Petitioner's tax and financial consulting business will likewise be of national importance.”
“the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor would have broader impacts beyond that of the clients the Petitioner's company would serve”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan provides no analysis or explanation of how these estimates were calculated”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“unaudited financial statements...are not verifiable evidence and reflect the statements of management”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these factors do not help to show the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
- 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 →
Notable
AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that the Director imposed a heightened evidentiary standard, finding the Petitioner merely made conclusory assertions without identifying specific errors. AAO also declined to reach prong 3 as prong 1 failure was dispositive.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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