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 Brazilian-trained tax analyst, planned to work as an accounting manager for a U.S. company while also establishing her own financial consulting firm to provide auditing, accounting, and compliance services to small and medium U.S. businesses.
Field: accounting/finance (tax specialist) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found EB-2 eligibility established as an advanced degree professional, though noted the Director had not properly analyzed exceptional ability criteria or performed a final merits determination.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“there is no evidence in the record to explain and demonstrate how the [benefits of the] petitioner's proposed endeavor will extend beyond her employer or organization and its clients to impact the industry or the field more broadly.”
“the materials do not establish that her particular venture would substantially affect the U.S. economy or financial field.”
“the Petitioner confuses substantial merit with national importance.”
“she has not demonstrated that her particular, proposed endeavor would help enough businesses to improve financial compliance at a nationally important level.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“her business plan projections do not demonstrate the claimed national implications of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these materials focus on the national importance of the financial field as a whole, not on the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“the record lacks proof that a HubZone encompasses the proposed headquarters of the Petitioner's firm”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO noted the Director had not properly conducted the exceptional-ability evidentiary analysis or a final merits determination, but found EB-2 eligibility independently satisfied via the advanced-degree pathway; case turned entirely on national importance, with Dhanasar's own STEM-teaching example used analogically to show 'meritorious but not nationally important' reasoning.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(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