dismissedNOV212024_04B52032024-11-21 · 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 sought to continue her career as a financial and investment analyst by operating her own consulting company offering budgeting, forecasting, financial planning, and financial literacy training services to small and medium-sized businesses and low-income individuals.
Field: financial and investment analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that any direct benefits she provides to her customers would result in broader implications commensurate with national importance”
“the industry alone is not sufficient to establish its national importance”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
“Dr. V-L- does not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would broadly impact the field or otherwise lead to substantial economic effects”
“the letters of recommendation primarily focus on the Petitioner's past experience without addressing the prospective impact of her endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation primarily focus on the Petitioner's past experience without addressing the prospective impact of her endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the industry alone is not sufficient to establish its national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 noted the Petitioner's appeal brief made only general disagreement with the Director's decision without identifying specific errors, citing Matter of Valencia on the purpose of an appeal; AAO also expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.
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 Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution