dismissedJUN142022_01B52032022-06-14 · appeal · Nebraska 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 managing director in South Korean real estate finance, proposed to create a U.S.-based asset management firm providing quantitative investment analysis and cross-border deal origination to attract Asian institutional capital into U.S. investments.
Field: finance / asset management and investment services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director determined the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that this letter does not support a finding that the Petitioner's endeavor stands to impact the United States at a level commensurate with national importance, as opposed to impacting the individual parties involved in the transactions.”
“As the record currently stands, these projections appear to be little more than conjecture.”
“he has not provided evidence of how the "spillover effect" or economic "chain reaction" that he expects his proposed endeavor to set off would be substantial enough to affect tax revenues or Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”
“We conclude that generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“None of articles or reports in the record discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how it will have an impact so substantial as to rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“these projections appear to be little more than conjecture”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record does not include evidence showing that these awards are recognized beyond the presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 noted the Director's decision erroneously described the Petitioner as an 'electrical engineer' but deemed this a harmless error since the Director otherwise correctly engaged with the evidence.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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