dismissedJUL152024_03B52032024-07-15 · 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.
The Petitioner, a finance specialist, proposed to continue providing investment-structuring and consulting services to U.S. companies and real estate projects through his own New York-based consulting company.
Field: finance / private equity investment services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it appeared that the benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would primarily accrue to his prospective employer”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his company's operations would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or nation at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the letters do not reflect contractual work or investment commitments with the Petitioner's company”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's business plan projects that his company will have 14 full-time employees by the fifth year of operation”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the letters do not reflect contractual work or investment commitments with the Petitioner's company”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the letters are not sufficient to show significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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
Footnote cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as joining Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits in holding NIW grant/denial is discretionary in nature.
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
- 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