dismissedMAY162025_02B52032025-05-16 · appeal
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/accountant, proposed to establish her own company in New York offering accounting, bookkeeping, tax, financial consulting, and software automation services to small and medium enterprises.
Field: accounting and financial consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional based on foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“These projections do not indicate the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, even in an economically depressed area, or will otherwise have substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance.”
“The record does not demonstrate, however, that the Petitioner's work would extend beyond her company's clients to impact her field more broadly on a level indicative of national importance.”
“These articles do not discuss the Petitioner's company or establish its potential prospective impact.”
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues to an industry or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“The Petitioner submitted letters from professionals who praise her past work and accomplishments but do not address any potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
“The record does not indicate that any of these services are unique, innovative, or otherwise have national or global implications in the accounting and financial services industries.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“These projections do not indicate the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“but does not discuss her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“These articles do not discuss the Petitioner's company or establish its potential prospective impact.”
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 conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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 relied on economically distressed area analysis, finding modest 9-employee/5-year job projections insufficient; multiple recommendation letters were dismissed as praising only past work, not the proposed endeavor.
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
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