dismissedDEC222020_03B52032020-12-22 · 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 financial manager, proposed to continue working as a finance manager for a U.S. employer, handling budgeting, financial reporting, audits, and financial planning.
Field: financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“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.”
“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 at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's financial management projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and future clientele”
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
- 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
Petitioner's job offer and duty letters were treated as illustrative of the position's capacity rather than dispositive since job offer is not required for a waiver; decision explicitly frames dismissal on prong 1 alone as an independent and alternate basis.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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