dismissedMAY142024_12B52032024-05-14 · 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 experienced Fintech professional, proposed to work in the U.S. as a Fintech services executive developing digital payment, cross-border remittance, and financial-inclusion technologies while collaborating with industry, regulators, and investors.
Field: financial technology (Fintech) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's broad statements about the various issues of concern that he might address and general information about the Fintech industry offer little insight into the specific endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the submitted letters do not substantiate the nature of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner intends to engage in or explain the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed work”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, he has not met his burden to demonstrate through the preponderance of evidence that he meets the second prong.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters do not substantiate the nature of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner intends to engage in or explain the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's broad statements about the various issues of concern that he might address and general information about the Fintech industry offer little insight into the specific endeavor that he intends to pursue”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he did not provide a detailed description explaining how he will be prospectively engaged in the provision of Fintech-related services in the United States, supported by documentary evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p2 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
1,581coded 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
The Director had found the second prong satisfied but failed the first and third; the AAO withdrew the Director's second-prong finding and instead found both the first and second prongs unmet, declining to reach the third prong.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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