dismissedJAN052023_02B52032023-01-05 · 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 initially proposed to provide treasury and controllership services to unidentified U.S. companies, but later shifted to describing a wallpaper sales/installation business he founded and a Florida real estate sales license.

Field: finance / corporate treasury and controllership · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor is vague and general, providing few details beyond his intention to continue working as a treasurer and controller for unidentified”

“this localized benefit does not address how the Petitioner's work would have national importance as a corporate controller or treasurer.”

“he did not explain how his work in the field would "help fill this demand" at a level indicating national impmiance.”

“Aggregate data about the entire economy of Brazil do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance for the United States”

“The overall importance of a given occupation does not necessarily lend national importance to individual workers in that occupation.”

“In this case, the Petitioner has not identified a single, consistent, and cohesive proposed endeavor.”

“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an eff01i to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the writer did not explain how this advantage has national importance.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the business plan concerns a wallpaper company, not "the finance industry."”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“his Florida real estate license has no apparent connection to the original proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the letters refer to decoration projects, and do not indicate that the companies have hired the Petitioner as a treasurer or controller”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner has not explained why his initial description of the proposed endeavor did not mention his newly-formed company.”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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 relied on Matter of Izummi's material-change doctrine, finding the Petitioner impermissibly shifted his proposed endeavor mid-proceeding from treasury/controllership work to an unrelated wallpaper business and real estate licensure, and treated this inconsistency as fatal to the national-importance showing without reaching prongs two or three.

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. 103.3
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer