dismissedAUG052024_09B52032024-08-05 · 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 proposed to work as a full-stack software developer for American financial institutions, aiming to modernize their operations, reduce environmental impacts, improve productivity, and increase revenue through modern software solutions.
Field: software development / financial technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his potential employer or clients to impact the field of financial technologies more broadly”
“they do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and any impact it would have on the financial technology field”
“does not specify how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his prospective employer or clients to have substantial economic effects and enhance societal welfare”
“our determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field, but rather "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“Neither of the articles mention the Petitioner or discuss the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor on the IT consulting market and financial technology.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and any impact it would have on the financial technology field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not focus on the importance of a field, but rather focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“Neither of the articles mention the Petitioner or discuss the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Beyond working in a STEM field, B-D-W- does not establish the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
746coded 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 reversed the Director's finding on substantial merit (agreeing merit was shown) but still found national importance unmet, illustrating that the two sub-elements of prong 1 are analyzed separately; AAO also rejected Petitioner's unsupported claim that Director applied a heightened standard of proof.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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