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 establish and lead a financial, tax, and accounting consulting business in Florida serving U.S. start-up businesses interested in expanding into the Brazilian market.
Field: financial, tax, and accounting consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus over five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her business and clients to have a potential prospective impact on her field more broadly.”
“The growth and importance of the financial management and accounting industries is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field, any other industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic and societal welfare benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Her professional experience, knowledge, and achievements relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- 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 addressed a footnote citing Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) confirming NIW grant/denial is discretionary; Petitioner unsuccessfully argued Director applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard, and AAO expressly rejected that argument before proceeding to affirm the national importance denial.
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 E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers