dismissedJUL302024_09B52032024-07-30 · 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 planned to establish her own company providing financial advising, real estate consulting, and property management services, with offices in Florida and Georgia, advising clients and companies on financial planning.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Director found Petitioner did not establish five years of progressive experience equating to a master's degree; Petitioner did not challenge this on appeal, and AAO declined to address it as the national importance finding was dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele to impact her field, the financial advising industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”

“However, the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”

“she has not offered sufficient evidence that her endeavor offers Florida, Georgia, or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from her education, skills, and job experience.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
other · discounted
“the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“her skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, 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
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

The AAO explicitly declined to address the threshold advanced-degree finding (unchallenged) and the second/third Dhanasar prongs, resting dismissal solely on national importance under prong one; also rejected the argument that the Director applied a heightened standard of proof.

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)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer