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 specialist, sought to continue facilitating the transfer of foreign investment funds from Eastern Europe and the Baltic states into U.S. real estate development projects, including related FATCA compliance work.
Field: finance/real estate investment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner's bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in finance sufficient to qualify as the equivalent of an advanced degree; exceptional ability track not reached.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field or the U.S. real estate industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The decision explicitly notes that even though only Dhanasar prong 1 was analyzed and found dispositive, the AAO's conclusion is stated as resting on 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' despite only one prong actually being substantively analyzed.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod