dismissedJUN232023_02B52032023-06-23 · 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 operations/financial manager, proposed to improve financial planning, cost control, and food-waste monitoring processes at her employer in the food industry.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not show an advanced degree above her bachelor's degree, nor at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience as required under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); AAO withdrew Director's finding that she qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner also has not shown that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her employment at”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner has not provided any supporting evidence, aside from claims in her professional plan, that her employment and business management duties stand to provide substantial economic benefits”

“These letters do not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of improving the financial practices of her employer alone will substantially benefit the U.S. business or food industries”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters do not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor ... will substantially benefit the U.S. business or food industries”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's employment letters do not demonstrate that she has at least five years progressive experience following her bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that this associate degree is an advanced degree "above" that of her bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“speculates on how her services can potentially improve business practices but does not offer any persuasive detail”
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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

2,589coded 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 withdrew the Director's favorable findings on both the advanced-degree threshold and prong 1, then found against Petitioner on both, treating each as an independent alternate basis for dismissal. AAO also criticized the Director's original decision for failing to identify or describe the proposed endeavor before ruling on prong 1.

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 L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer