remandedMAR252021_01B52032021-03-25 · 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/cash management sales manager, intended to continue working in the finance industry in the United States.

Field: finance / cash management sales · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional, holding that the academic evaluation alone did not establish an advanced degree equivalency and that the employer letter did not establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future employer(s) and clients”

“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“The evaluation does not establish that the Petitioner's education alone meets the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A).”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The letter does not, however, establish that the Petitioner's experience was progressive.”
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
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 remanded solely on the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree issue (reversing the Director's favorable finding on that point), while separately noting in dicta that it agreed with the Director's prior denial on prong 1 national importance grounds, even though that prong was not the basis for the remand.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Threshold EB-2 eligibility failed first: employer letter did not establish progressive post-baccalaureate experience, so classification itself was unproven, forcing remand before NIW merits could be finally decided.

Transferable lesson

Secure employer letters explicitly detailing progressive responsibility/experience, and articulate a concrete endeavor with evidence of industry- or nation-wide impact, not just personal job continuation.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer