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.
A financial manager sought to continue working in the U.S. financial industry, though the specific proposed endeavor and its broader impact were not clearly articulated.
Field: finance / financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never made an initial determination on the Petitioner's claim of exceptional ability (six criteria asserted), and AAO found the record insufficient to establish advanced degree professional status due to deficient employer letters. Remanded for Director to make this threshold determination first.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“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 in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer(s) and clients such that it would impact U.S. interests or the financial industry more broadly”
“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not satisfy this regulatory requirements and, thus, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“we must also look to letter(s) from the Petitioner's current or former employers to demonstrate that he has the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Unusual procedural posture: AAO agrees with Director's ultimate national-importance conclusion but remands anyway because the Director skipped the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability determination entirely (Director only addressed the national interest waiver portion, not the underlying classification). AAO also finds, contrary to Petitioner's NOID-response assertion, that no prior USCIS determination had found him an advanced degree professional.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Remand required because Director never made threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability determination; separately, petitioner failed to show endeavor's impact extends beyond employer/clients to a nationally important scale.
Establish the threshold EB-2 classification first, and show quantifiable, broader industry/economic impact beyond your own clients or employer to meet national importance.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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