dismissedAUG242023_11B52032023-08-24 · 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 financial analyst, proposed to provide financial planning, financial management, and market expansion services to U.S. businesses and individuals, with a focus on the automotive industry.
Field: financial analysis / financial services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor extends beyond the companies or clients that he will serve”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the record does not demonstrate how working for a company or companies as an individual financial analyst... generates such significant economic activity”
“These opinion letters do not provide any corroborating details to show that the Petitioner's skills or methodologies differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“While the recommendation letters indicate the high regard for the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or specific impact of his endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“address his past accomplishments as a financial specialist impacting his workplace and do not address national importance of his endeavor's 'potential prospective impact'”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“resume, certifications, and recommendation letters all address his past accomplishments... and do not address national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the proposed activities in his professional plan entail typical work of a financial analyst”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the advisory opinions are of little probative value as they do not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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
The AAO addressed and dismissed as immaterial an OCR/administrative error in which pages from a different petitioner's file (an aircraft maintenance mechanic) had been mistakenly included in this Petitioner's initial submission, causing the Director to reference 'aeronautics' twice; the AAO found this did not affect the outcome and reviewed the case de novo based on the correct financial-analyst endeavor.
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)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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