dismissedJUN132024_01B52032024-06-13 · 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 analyst, proposed to provide financial services to companies and individuals, including developing financial models and providing financial guidance to small and medium-sized business owners.

Field: financial analysis / financial services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found insufficient evidence of five years progressive post-degree experience; AAO withdrew this finding on appeal based on additional employment documentation, concluding the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“did not elaborate with specific details regarding how he would proceed with his proposed endeavor”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual proposes to engage; instead we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence describing the significance of his specific endeavor's potential for job creation or to have positive economic effects”

“the Petitioner has not established that his proposal to provide financial services to individuals and small businesses is of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letters written by his former employers and colleagues do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“these descriptions do not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor, which is to provide financial services to the clients of his employer”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“this evidence is of minimal evidentiary value in determining the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

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

The AAO noted that the Petitioner's appellate brief described a different endeavor (a digital marketing company) than the one identified in prior filings, attributing this to a drafting error by the representative and disregarding it in its 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)
Buletini v. INS
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer