dismissedJUL102024_03B52032024-07-10 · appeal · Texas 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.
The Petitioner, a financial management consultant and accountant, planned to open and operate a financial consulting firm assisting U.S. companies with financial decisions, operations, and expansion into Latin America.
Field: financial services and accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact the financial services industry, the accounting industry, or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly”
“she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels, business activity, associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits”
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan indicates that the company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy... would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · discounted
“these factors are not sufficient to show national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
- other · discounted
“the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally”
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
2,501coded 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 explicitly reserved opinion on prongs two and three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach alternative issues once the burden was not met on prong one.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution