dismissedJUN152023_01B52032023-06-15 · 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, an experienced IT professional, proposed to work as a Chief Technology Officer for U.S. financial technology companies, developing AI-based credit/risk management and cross-border payment solutions for small and medium businesses.

Field: information technology / financial technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional based on a Brazilian master's degree equivalency.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“much of the evidence submitted in support of this prong addresses the industry or profession in which the Petitioner intends to work without addressing his specific proposed endeavor”

“this evidence does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

“the letters primarily focus on how his work benefits his employer”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”

“He does not attribute the creation of any additional direct or indirect jobs to his specific proposed endeavor”

“the record does not demonstrate, for example, that it is a major player or driver of growth in the market in terms of its size, revenue or number of customers served”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters primarily focus on how his work benefits his employer”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“it is unclear that the company's reach in the sector is sufficiently widespread to have national implications”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“it is evident that the company has separate technology, global payments, and technology departments”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate, for example, that it is a major player or driver of growth in the market”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

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 found the record showed the petitioner's employer-focused operational role (VP of Operations) was not clearly comparable to the CTO role he claimed to be pursuing, undermining the endeavor's specificity. AAO expressly declined to reach prong 3 as prong 1 failure was dispositive; prong 2 was not challenged since Director found it satisfied.

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 Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer