dismissedMAR122024_02B52032024-03-12 · 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 accountant, proposed to provide accounting, auditing, financial reporting, budgeting, and compliance services to U.S. companies, drawing on her knowledge of international accounting standards.
Field: accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's discussion of her proposed activities entails typical work of an accountant”
“the Petitioner has not offered any evidence or persuasive explanation for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how working for a company or companies as an individual accountant generates such significant economic activity that rises to the level of "substantial positive economic effects."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the evidence as submitted does not demonstrate that her accounting techniques or innovations are unavailable in the United States or better than that which is already offered”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or specific impact of her endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The expert letter... describes the growing demand for accounting professionals and the Petitioner's past experiences but does not address how her endeavor will broadly impact the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the advisory opinions are of little probative value as they do not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
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
- 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
- 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 →
Notable
AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) confirming NIW grant/denial is discretionary in nature, joining other circuits on this point.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod