dismissedNOV202024_09B52032024-11-20 · motion_reconsider · 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 finance and insurance manager, proposed to continue his career helping U.S. companies implement process improvements and financial management standards, including consulting, training, and financial automation services.
Field: finance and insurance management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“In our decision on appeal, we concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked specificity.”
“The Petitioner's explanation does not add specificity to his proposed endeavor and the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a U.S. job search.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“Without corroborating evidence, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his services”
“he does not demonstrate with evidence in the record how his financial and insurance manager services would have a broader impact in the industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they also discussed the importance of the finance and insurance fields...without illustrating how the services he intended to provide individual companies would have impact”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they did not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or show that his proposed endeavor would broadly impact the finance and insurance field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's arguments for the national importance of his proposed endeavor rested on examples of his past performance and did not explain how his specific endeavor would have a broader impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we will not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“his motion reasserts arguments already addressed on appeal.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,589coded 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 AAO explicitly declined to consider a new economic impact analysis submitted with the motion, noting motions to reconsider are limited to the record at the time of the prior decision, not new evidence (footnote 1).
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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