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 serve as chief financial and robotic process automation officer for hotels and resorts, helping hospitality businesses implement automation to improve financial structure and efficiency.
Field: hospitality finance / robotic process automation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional; AAO reserved the issue since NIW eligibility was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor would have the broader implications required by Dhanasar”
“the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor will prospectively impact more than the companies he will be serving as chief financial and robotic process automation officer for hotels and resorts”
“these articles are helpful for background information and in a substantial merit claim as discussed above, however, they are not evidence of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“The hotel industry's economic impact and Petitioner's own statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide these benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are applicable to prong two analysis, on whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these articles are helpful for background information...however, they are not evidence of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the expert opinion letter reiterates many of the same arguments the Petitioner makes that have been addressed above”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO reserved both the EB-2 threshold classification issue and prongs two and three, resolving the appeal solely on national importance grounds; cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) regarding discretionary nature of NIW review.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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