remandedDEC202021_01B52032021-12-20 · 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 financial/costs analyst, sought to continue working in the financial industry in the United States as a self-employed or employed financial analyst.

Field: finance/financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The record does not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree (unresolved transfer-credit discrepancy) or that her employment constituted five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, and there are unresolved inconsistencies between employment letters, the work booklet, and the ETA-750B.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the pro spective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future employer(s) and clients such that it would impact U.S. interests or the financial industry more broadly”

“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the documentation does not sufficiently establish that the accepted any transfened credits”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“they do not include any information regarding her job duties”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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

Unusual outcome: the AAO agreed with the Director's denial-basis finding that the Petitioner failed to establish national importance under prong 1, yet still remanded the case (rather than dismissing) because the threshold EB-2 classification (foreign equivalent degree and progressive experience) had not been properly adjudicated, citing unresolved inconsistencies between employment letters, a Brazilian work booklet, and the ETA-750B under Matter of Ho.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Ho

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Threshold EB-2 classification unresolved (degree equivalency, progressive experience, and unexplained employment inconsistencies) required remand; independently, national importance was unproven since impact was not shown to extend beyond employer/clients.

Transferable lesson

Resolve credential/employment inconsistencies with objective evidence and articulate how the endeavor's effects extend beyond one's employer to the broader field or economy.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer