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 manager, proposed to continue working as a financial manager advising U.S. companies on financial planning and investing; in RFE response he added a plan to open a cryptocurrency asset management company.
Field: financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“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”
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) and clients to impact the industry more broadly”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of his work, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO limited its national-importance analysis to the endeavor described in the initial petition (financial manager) because the Petitioner added a new cryptocurrency asset-management endeavor only in RFE response, invoking Katigbak/Izummi/Bardouille bar on post-filing eligibility. AAO also noted a clerical error in the Director's decision misidentifying the Petitioner's field as 'law enforcement and criminal justice' but found it immaterial.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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