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 relationship manager with a background in accountancy, financial advisory, and insurance management, proposed to increase financial literacy and financial inclusion in the United States by developing insurance and financial advisory services, including AI-driven tools and Sharia-compliant/Islamic finance offerings targeted at underserved communities.
Field: financial advisory, insurance, and financial literacy services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner submitted vague assertions regarding the nature of his proposed endeavor making it difficult to determine whether it would likely have potential prospective national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
“there is no such detailed business plan including probative information such as financial or job projections”
“he does not indicate whether he will likely receive such fonding, from what source ifhe did, in what amounts”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“there is no such detailed business plan including probative information such as financial or job projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success is a consideration under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he does not sufficiently detail and document how his work in finance and insurance in the United States would be materially different from any other similarly experienced employee”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“he does not indicate whether he will likely receive such fonding, from what source ifhe did, in what amounts”
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
- 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
- Funding absent · p1 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
Notable
The Petitioner introduced new theories on appeal/RFE response (AI tools, Islamic finance, Sharia-compliant services) that the AAO noted were not mentioned in the initial petition, undermining credibility; AAO expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.
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 Ho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers