The Petitioner, a financial manager, sought to operate her own business providing financial/consulting services to clients, without evidence that the endeavor's benefits would extend beyond her business and its clients.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not provide evidence that demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field, any other industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“she did not provide evidence specific to her endeavor to demonstrate that it would have a "potential prospective impact" sufficient to establish national importance.”

“this is a general press release, which does not address the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• media · discounted

  “this is a general press release, which does not address the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner's legal brief lists three articles submitted with the motion, but the brief provides no analysis of how these articles provide new facts”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

Notable

AAO expressly clarifies it did not rely on the superseded NYSDOT geographic-breadth standard and that Dhanasar abrogated that requirement; it also confirms the Petitioner met the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification even though the waiver was denied on prong 1 alone, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- 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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of L-A-C-

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