NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB022023_05B52032023-02-02 · 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.

A banker with experience in Brazil proposed to continue working in the United States as a financial advisor/banker in Florida, providing financial advice to businesses and individuals.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with Director that Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree and five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“But this is a statement of a possibility, not a description of a specific endeavor that Dhanasar notes is the focus of the first prong analysis.”
“The Petitioner has not established that her employment by a bank for a financial advisory firm would potentially have implications beyond that employer and the clients she would serve.”
“she has not submitted sufficient detail regarding her proposed endeavor to support a link between her work and these positive outcomes.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“none of the letters describe these techniques to any extent, nor do they provide details regarding how they were used by the Petitioner.”
“they are insufficient to establish a record of success.”
“she does not provide any specifics regarding legal work she would perform in the United States. So she has not shown that her education is related to or would help her advance her proposed endeavor.”
“these do not show that she was well-positioned to advance her endeavor at the time her petition was filed.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “none of the letters describe these techniques to any extent, nor do they provide details regarding how they were used by the Petitioner.”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “these do not show that she was well-positioned to advance her endeavor at the time her petition was filed.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “she has not shown that her education is related to or would help her advance her proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 reserved the third prong entirely, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the proposition that agencies need not reach issues unnecessary to the result, despite Petitioner arguing she met prong three on appeal.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer