dismissedJUL202023_02B52032023-07-20 · 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 intended to work as a business controller providing financial, budget, tax, and strategic management consulting services to startups and small/medium-sized U.S. companies.
Field: business/financial controllership · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The letter from Dr. J-B- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a controller offers broader implications in his field”
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer or clientele to impact the financial management field”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter from Dr. J-B- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- 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
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 →
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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