dismissedJUL012024_11B52032024-07-01 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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.

Petitioner initially proposed to work as an independent financial manager creating financial reports and investment plans, but on RFE response and appeal shifted to establishing and operating her own financial consulting company as CEO, employing several other professionals.

Field: financial management/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; AAO did not disturb this determination.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record as a whole remains insufficient to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor will extend beyond her company and its prospective clientele, such that it may impact the finance field more broadly and rise to the level of national importance”

“The Petitioner also has not shown how employing six professionals in New York, where she claims she will operate her company, establishes that her endeavor has a "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area."”

“we agree with the Director that she has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of this endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the record as a whole remains insufficient to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor will extend beyond her company and its prospective clientele”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
other · discounted
“The Petitioner asserts that this evidence underscores the importance of equipping U.S. business employees with advanced knowledge and skills”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“this new evidence was insufficient to overcome the grounds for denial, as it did not show that the Petitioner was eligible for the benefit sought at the time of filing”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO found a material change between the initially filed endeavor (financial manager employee role) and the RFE-response endeavor (CEO of own consulting company), applying the Izummi/Katigbak rule against retroactive eligibility, and used this as an independent alternate basis for dismissal alongside the prong 1 national importance failure. AAO noted Petitioner had filed a second, separate I-140 NIW petition currently pending.

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)(1)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor post-filing (from financial manager employee to consulting firm CEO), barring approval, and even considering the new plan, failed to show impact beyond her own company/clients.

Transferable lesson

Define the specific endeavor and its national-scale impact fully at filing; do not substantively alter the endeavor's nature in RFE responses or motions.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer