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 administrator, proposed to continue working in financial administration for her current employer and, in the future, provide financial administration consulting services to other businesses.
Field: financial administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found insufficient evidence of 5 years progressive experience, but AAO reversed, finding letters from employers sufficiently established the required experience; petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We recognize the value of financial administration services; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner's personal statements emphasize the value of financial administration services instead of focusing on the prospective impact of her specific endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link the specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth”
“We are not persuaded by the professor's claim that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in her industry”
“these statements are not supported by financial projections”
“The record lacks evidence that the proposed endeavor's future staffing levels and business activity would provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters from the professors and the Petitioner's employers and colleagues do not contain sufficient information and explanation”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- media · discounted
“this documentation supports the Director's determination that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, it does not establish that the endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO reversed the Director on the threshold EB-2 classification issue (finding sufficient progressive experience) but still dismissed the appeal on NIW prong 1 national importance grounds. Petitioner cited two non-precedent EB-1 extraordinary ability decisions as persuasive authority, which AAO rejected as inapplicable (different classification, non-binding, and distinguishable).
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
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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