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 initially proposed to work as a financial operations director for U.S. employers in wealth management and credit risk, then later shifted to proposing to operate her own management consulting company (L-) advising banks and wealth-management firms.
Field: financial services / wealth management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's finding and concluded the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional based on a foreign bachelor's degree equivalency plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude her RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to support her assertion that her work as a financial operations director for one or more U.S. employers, or alternatively as a director of operations for her own consultancy firm, would have substantially positive effects”
“the business plan does not sufficiently address when L- will commence doing business”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's plans to establish a new company and perform services as a director of operations for this entity cannot retroactively establish eligibility”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
AAO reversed the Director on the EB-2 threshold classification (finding the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional) but dismissed on Dhanasar prong 1, emphasizing that the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response (from working for a U.S. employer to operating her own consultancy), which independently barred approval under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak and 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1).
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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