dismissedDEC222020_02B52032020-12-22 · appeal · Nebraska 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 finance manager, proposed to continue working as a finance manager for a U.S. employer (a senior care facility), with stated interests in investment analysis, strategic finance, and eventually starting her own finance-related business.
Field: finance management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and future clientele to impact the financial management field or U.S. economy more broadly”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“her position 'involves application of all managerial functions such as planning, organizing, directing, and controlling the finance function'”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed work as a finance manager has substantial merit.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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
AAO agreed the endeavor has substantial merit but found no national importance shown, treating merit and importance as separable sub-elements of prong 1; decision explicitly frames dismissal as an independent and alternate basis without reaching prongs 2 and 3.
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.
- 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