dismissedFEB152024_05B52032024-02-15 · 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.
The Petitioner, an international financial advisor, proposed to advise clients on investments, assets, and wealth portfolio management, and to attract foreign direct investment to enhance cross-border activity in the U.S. economy.
Field: international financial advisory / wealth management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work in financial management offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects”
“the Petitioner did not provide any documentation or information regarding these investments to show that they do in fact make an impact in the financial management field”
“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any foreign direct investment in the United States or any cross-border activities to be procured as a result of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would create jobs on a magnitude”
“the record does not show that benefits to the 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
- other · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work...offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide any documentation or information regarding these investments to show that they do in fact make an impact”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“generally reiterates the previously claimed economic impacts of his proposed business...but does not provide any new evidence or arguments”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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 accepted that the endeavor had substantial merit (financial services industry importance) but found national importance not established, emphasizing that field/industry importance cannot substitute for showing the specific endeavor's prospective impact; the $200 million AUM claim was rejected for lack of documentation.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution