dismissedJUL192023_05B52032023-07-19 · 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 manager, proposed to develop and manage financial plans for U.S. companies to grow their businesses, optimize resources, increase revenue and create jobs.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed endeavor as a financial manager would impact the finance field more broadly rather than benefiting her employer or clients.”

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any foreign direct investment in the United States or any cross-border activities in Brazil to be procured as a result of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would create jobs on a magnitude, which could elevate her proposed endeavor to a level of national importance.”

“Lack of detailed information and the Petitioner's general conclusionary assertions without supporting documentation impede our ability to determine whether the proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“these duties do not illustrate how her proposed endeavor to provide services as a financial manager will have broader implications”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
business plan · discounted
“she has not provided farther details regarding how she will innovate the way financial services are provided”
AAO decision text
certification membership · ignored
other · discounted
“statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
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 expressly declined to determine EB-2 classification eligibility, treating the national-importance failure as dispositive and dismissing on that ground alone; the decision emphasizes that lengthy administrative/sales employment history could support prong 2 but is irrelevant to prong 1's national importance analysis.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor (not the finance industry generally) would have broader impact beyond her employer/clients, relying on conclusory claims of innovation and job creation without evidentiary support.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor concretely and support claimed broader/economic impact with quantified, endeavor-specific evidence, not industry importance or generic job-creation assertions.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer