remandedJUN162022_02B52032022-06-16 · 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.

A finance manager working in financial planning and analysis for U.S. companies proposed to continue this work, claiming her strategies would help U.S. businesses expand, create jobs, and recover from COVID-19 economic impacts.

Field: finance / financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found the Director never addressed whether the Petitioner's Brazilian diploma and lack of an official academic record/transcript qualified as a U.S. equivalent advanced degree, or whether she had five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience by the filing date; remanded for the Director to resolve this in the first instance.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”

“the COVID-19 pandemic did not exist at the time of filing and thus cannot be considered here”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“the decision does not identify the evidence and sufficiently explain the basis for this determination”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“While the Director's decision adequately addressed the Petitioner's labor shortage argument, it did not offer a response to her other arguments”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the evaluation is of little value in this matter”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
resume experience · discounted
“materialized after the filing of the petition, and therefore would not establish her eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

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

Unusual disposition: rather than affirming or reversing on the merits, the AAO largely agreed with the Director's substantive conclusions (rejecting the STEM-shortage and COVID-19 arguments, and the labor-shortage argument under prong 3) but found the Director's decision procedurally deficient for failing to address the Petitioner's expert letter and for not explaining the basis for the favorable prong-2 finding, and for never resolving the threshold advanced-degree question at all. The matter was remanded for a fuller explanation rather than decided outright.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's denial failed to consider and explain reasons regarding key evidence (expert letter, prongs 2/3 rationale), preventing meaningful review; case remanded rather than decided on merits.

Transferable lesson

Adjudicators must fully explain evidentiary weighing; petitioners should tie shortage/economic arguments to endeavor-specific, quantifiable national-scale impact, not generic labor-market claims.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · public_health

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer