dismissedAUG232024_04B52032024-08-23 · 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 Brazilian-trained financial consultant, proposed to operate her own firm providing financial and investment planning advice to individuals and small businesses in the United States.

Field: financial consulting / investment planning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, broadly impact the industry beyond her business, or otherwise have broader economic or societal implications rising to the level of national importance.”

“she has not persuasively explained, and the evidence does not show, how her proposed work would have broader implications for the financial services industry and U.S. economy as she claims, beyond her own business and its potential clientele.”

“the record does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and the claimed need for the stated numbers of employees.”

“the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate these projections, such as an independent basis for the claimed net worth, payroll and tax expenses, and the source of the claimed revenue.”

“The business plan by itself therefore does not establish a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic or other benefits indicating national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“The business plan by itself therefore does not establish a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic or other benefits indicating national importance.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's aspirational assertions, recommendation letters, industry reports, and general government policy initiatives, do not otherwise validate the claimed national importance”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's reliance on her experience and credentials relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“general industry reports and articles on the financial services industry and small businesses ... do not specifically relate to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its claimed national importance.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“We are thus not required to consider the new documents on appeal.”
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
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,312coded 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 footnote cites Brasil v. DHS, 28 F.4th 1189 (11th Cir. 2022) for the proposition that NIW determinations are nonreviewable discretionary decisions. AAO also declined to consider new industry-report evidence submitted on appeal because the Director had already issued an RFE on the specific deficiency, citing 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11) and Matter of Soriano, though it noted the evidence would not have changed the outcome regardless.

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.

INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer