dismissedJAN052026_01B52032026-01-05 · appeal · SCOPS 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 associate attorney at a law firm, proposes to continue advising clients on U.S. cross-border tax compliance strategies and facilitating foreign investment into the United States.

Field: cross-border tax law / international tax compliance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional (Master of Laws degree); not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor's impact would extend beyond her firm or the firm's clients to impact the field more broadly.”

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”

“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her endeavor, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy”

“alignment with general national goals, in and of itself, does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“discuss the Petitioner's professional experience, her proficiency in advising both international and domestic clients, and the ways in which the Petitioner's work has facilitated foreign investment”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field”
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

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

The AAO explicitly noted that the Petitioner's claimed facilitation of over $13 billion in cross-border transactions was insufficient to establish national importance because the benefit was limited to the firm and its clients. The AAO also flagged that recommendation letters discussing professional experience were misplaced under prong 1 and more relevant to prong 2, illustrating a common analytical error by petitioners conflating personal qualifications with endeavor-level national importance.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her specific endeavor's impact extended beyond her firm and its clients to the broader field, economy, or public policy at a nationally significant scale.

Transferable lesson

Define a discrete endeavor and provide independent, quantifiable evidence of its broader field/economic impact—not just client-benefit figures or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer