dismissedMAR192024_04B52032024-03-19 · 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 proposed to own and operate an accounting firm, projecting the hiring of five full-time employees in a community of approximately two million people.
Field: accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree holder; the Director and AAO found the underlying classification satisfied.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong”
“the projected hiring of five foll-time employees in a community with a population of approximately two million people is not an indication of the endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the submitted industry reports highlight the importance of the Petitioner's field rather than focusing on the proposed endeavor”
“this argument unnecessarily centers on the field of the Petitioner's endeavor rather than the endeavor itself, which is the focus of a national importance determination”
“he does not discuss how the letters are relevant to the issue of national importance given that they address the Petitioner's qualifications and prior work and make no mention of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“not an indication of the endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“highlight the importance of the Petitioner's field rather than focusing on the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“make no mention of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not specify which evidence he feels the Director overlooked”
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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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 expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis, and declined to reach the third prong as unnecessary given the dispositive first-prong failure.
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)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers