dismissedJUL122024_05B52032024-07-12 · 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 finance and insurance manager, proposed to continue working for U.S. companies helping them with process improvement, financial management, and investment decision-making, without opening his own business.

Field: finance and insurance 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 Petitioner has not explained logistically how he would act in these various and wide-ranging capacities at the same time.”

“the Petitioner has not described how his employment as a financial and insurance manager will have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual companies he intends to partner with.”

“these reports do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the finance and insurance fields”

“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, except to state that "the projections are based on [his] past success and expertise."”

“the letters neglect to illustrate how working for individual companies will have a nationally important impact on the fields as claimed.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters neglect to illustrate how working for individual companies will have a nationally important impact on the fields as claimed.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the professional plan.”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“these reports do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the finance and insurance fields”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

recommendation letter · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. [ ] evaluation of national importance discusses the importance of the finance and insurance fields”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

1,358coded 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

The AAO cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW grants/denials are discretionary, joining other circuits; it also noted in a footnote that some recommendation letters and articles postdated the filing date and were disregarded under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12). The AAO declined to reach prongs two and three, deeming prong one dispositive.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer