dismissedOCT072025_03B52032025-10-07 · 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, an accountant, proposed to operate her own accounting consultancy LLC providing accounting, tax, and business-formation services primarily to small and medium-sized enterprises, including Latino-owned businesses.

Field: accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew SCOPS's erroneous graduation-date finding but still concluded the Petitioner failed to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty of accounting, because employer letters lacked required details (duties, full-time status) and one letter was submitted without a certified translation.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance”

“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the plan lacks sufficient analysis and the basis for these projections”

“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”

“While individual employer or client may benefit from her accounting services, the Petitioner has not offered any evidence or persuasive explanation for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“these letters do not show the necessary elements of her employment per 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the plan lacks sufficient analysis and the basis for these projections”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
AAO decision text
degree · credited
other · discounted
“there is no indication that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
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
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,312coded 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 withdrew SCOPS's erroneous finding on the Petitioner's graduation date but still dismissed the appeal on independent grounds (insufficient progressive experience and lack of national importance), reserving prongs two and three as unnecessary.

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. 103.2(b)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer