dismissedJUN292021_02B52032021-06-29 · 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, a financial analyst, proposed to advise U.S. companies on growth and profitability, focusing on financial analysis and foreign direct investments to enhance U.S. financial markets and cross-border operations with Latin America.
Field: financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) and clients to impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of his work, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision with additional comments, citing Matter of P. Singh for the practice of affirming lower decisions rather than independently restating the analysis.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(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