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 analyst and accountant, proposed to operate her own financial consulting business in California offering financial advisory, accounting, tax assistance, and business courses aimed at immigrant clients.
Field: finance/financial consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient details for the basis of these projections, including the multiplier evidence itself”
“these letters are from the Petitioner's previous employers who attest to her dedication, work ethics, and experience as a competent financial analyst, without meaningfully analyzing or discussing how her proposed endeavor meets the national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient details for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“without meaningfully analyzing or discussing how her proposed endeavor meets the national importance as defined in Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“did not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its impact with persuasive details”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Notable
The AAO's concluding order states 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' though only prong 1 was actually analyzed and the AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad to avoid advisory findings.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of V-K-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers