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 with over 17 years of experience, proposed to provide consulting services to a U.S. financial company in financial planning and analysis, including overseeing FP&A functions, advising on mergers and acquisitions, and helping businesses maximize corporate profit.
Field: financial planning and analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO reserved the underlying exceptional-ability classification determination but noted in a footnote that the Petitioner did not submit official transcripts and some letters showed only part-time employment, undermining the Director's partial findings; Petitioner told to address this in future filings.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future customers and/or employer(s) to impact the financial management industry more broadly”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“she has not shown that her financial management services stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the United States”
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond her customers and/or employer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond her customers and/or employer”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The professional plan does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) alongside other circuits confirming NIW grants are discretionary. A footnote flags unresolved exceptional-ability issues (missing transcripts, part-time employment) despite reserving that determination, instructing the Petitioner to address them in future filings.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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