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 former bank appraiser from the Republic of Georgia, claimed she would work as an 'entrepreneur' in the broad field of 'finance,' using general transferable skills, without specifying any particular occupation or business.
Field: finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as either an individual of exceptional ability (deficient/duplicated diploma translation, employer letters lacking duty descriptions and full-time status, no evidence of recognition for achievements) or as an advanced-degree professional (no credential evaluation showing degree equivalence, and no identified occupation to assess professional status). This threshold failure was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“we agree with the Director's observation in the RFE that the Petitioner has not described a specific proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner, however, provided no further details about what she plans to do in that field, even after the Director specifically asked for that information.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“We will not speculate as to how the degree might relate to the field of finance, because it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not include specific descriptions of the Petitioner's duties”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“The burden of proof is on the Petitioner, and she cannot meet that burden simply by asserting that she has met it.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The AAO expressly reserved the national interest waiver analysis because threshold EB-2 eligibility failure was dispositive, but nonetheless noted the endeavor was vague. The decision highlights suspicious evidence: two different translators produced identical translations of the same diploma, and the petitioner's statement inexplicably referenced a shortage in 'the architectural industry' despite no claimed architectural background, prompting the AAO to question the statement's true authorship.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 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