dismissedDEC042023_05B52032023-12-04 · combined · 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.
Petitioner, a chief technology officer/VP of Operations at a fintech-related company, proposed to continue work advancing technology and operations in enterprise risk management, claiming broader implications for the FinTech industry and job creation through business lending.
Field: financial technology / enterprise risk management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“much of the evidence submitted in support of the national importance of the endeavor addresses the industry or profession in which the Petitioner intends to work without addressing his specific proposed endeavor”
“the evidence, including the evidence on motion, does not identify the broader implications of his specific proposed endeavor as opposed to demonstrating the broader implications of FinTech or payment solutions generally”
“We did not question that the Petitioner's work benefits his employer, but rather we explained that the record did not demonstrate how his activities resulted in broader implications to the field and substantial positive economic effects”
“The Petitioner's conclusions appear to generalize and oversimplify the evidence, which does not sufficiently demonstrate job creation potential attributable to the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's submission on motion appears to be devised to address the evidentiary deficiencies we identified in our prior decision”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he acknowledges that we "duly considered" his professional plan and resume but then states that even a cursory review”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“this is not new evidence... its content involves the specific work the Petitioner proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the letter has not identified how many loan dollars the Petitioner's specific endeavor created, we cannot calculate how many jobs the proposed endeavor would create”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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 Petitioner argued that AAO's prior review compromised his due process rights by allegedly not giving 'due regard' to evidence; AAO rejected this as unsupported by legal authority. The decision also details a fairly granular rejection of a job-creation extrapolation methodology (using a $15,700-per-job loan origination ratio) as speculative and not tied to the specific 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. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
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