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 advisor, proposed to open a tax consulting company in New York serving businesses and individuals, projecting revenue growth and job creation.
Field: tax consulting / financial advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, finding her Russian academic credential (enrolled 2013, graduated 2013... actually 2010-2013) did not establish the foreign equivalent of a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree, and she did not claim exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is insufficient”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures presented in the business plan.”
“does not show how her future staffing levels would utilize a significant population of workers in the New York City region”
“the Petitioner did not identify in the record below or now on appeal the innovative methods and improvements she intends to implement”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“contains uncorroborated statements and does not demonstrate how her claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible, plausible, or substantiated have significant potential”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The Petitioner did not demonstrate she attended four years of education to obtain her degree in economics.”
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
Notable
AAO sua sponte withdrew SCOPS' favorable finding on the underlying EB-2 classification, concluding the Petitioner's foreign degree (a 3-year program) did not equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree, contrary to SCOPS' own determination; despite this, the appeal turned on the dispositive national importance failure under Dhanasar prong one, with prongs two and three expressly reserved.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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