dismissedJUN262023_05B52032023-06-26 · 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 sought to provide financial consulting and advisory services—including accounting, assurance, audits, bookkeeping, business planning, and tax consulting—to aviation companies and small and medium sized enterprises through his own firm.
Field: financial consulting/accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“A shortage of accounting professionals in the United States does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections and, even if he had, they would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his business' clientele.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not sufficiently describe the origin or basis for these projections and, even if he had, they would not establish the national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 →
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
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution