dismissedJUN262024_02B52032024-06-26 · combined · 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, a financial analyst, proposed to act as CEO and Lead Analyst of her own consulting company, providing financial advisory services to help small and medium-sized U.S. businesses increase profitability.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

MBA was obtained in December 2021, after the January 2021 filing date, so it cannot establish an advanced degree at time of filing; she also failed to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience (overlapping/pre-baccalaureate employment) and did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria at time of filing, relying instead on post-filing accomplishments.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor will likely reach the level of national importance”

“the potential impact of the proposed endeavor will likely be limited to the Petitioner's company's customers and clients”

“she has not shown that this level of economic effects, including the possible creation of 25 positions ... constitute "substantial positive economic effects"”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“a visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these materials, however, relate to her activities and accomplishments that occurred after she filed the petition”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“none of these letters name an achievement or significant contribution that she has made to the field of finance”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“she has not submitted corroborating evidence confirming the source, veracity, and accuracy of the listed information”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the evidence on motion, including the business plan, does not confirm that the Petitioner's work ... will likely impact the field”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

motion resubmission · discounted
“she has offered additional materials, attempting to address the deficiencies we identified in our previous decision”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

Combined motion to reopen and reconsider following an earlier dismissed appeal; the AAO found both threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree/exceptional ability) and Dhanasar prong 1 (national importance) unmet, treating the threshold failure and prong 1 failure as independently dispositive; new evidence (MBA diploma, promotions, salary increases, memberships, book) was uniformly rejected as post-filing and thus irrelevant under Matter of Katigbak's time-of-filing rule.

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. 103.5
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer