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, proposed to continue work in finance in the United States, submitting a business plan claiming her work could create approximately 25 jobs.
Field: finance / financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional because her MBA was obtained after the petition's filing date and her experience letters did not establish five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience. She also failed to establish exceptional ability, lacking evidence of ten years of full-time experience (only seven years since 2014) and lacking a high salary at the time of filing (salary/bonus evidence related to 2023, after filing).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence submitted on motion, including her business plan, did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work as a financial analyst would likely impact the field of finance”
“the economic effects, including the possible creation of 25 positions, constitute "substantial positive economic effects" discussed in Matter of Dhanasar”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“she must demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing her petition”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“some of her claimed qualifying employment experience commenced prior to the completion of her bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these materials relate to career achievements occurring after she filed the petition in January 2021”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work as a financial analyst would likely impact the field of finance”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not submit any new evidence and does not assert any new facts supported by documentary evidence”
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
Notable
This is the second round of combined motions in the same proceeding; the AAO repeatedly notes the Petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and largely reasserted prior arguments, explicitly invoking Matter of O-S-G- to reject reargument as a basis for reconsideration. The decision addresses threshold EB-2 eligibility (both advanced degree and exceptional ability categories) as independently dispositive alongside the Dhanasar 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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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