The Petitioner, a management and financial analyst, intended to work in financial advisory/management services in the United States, including through her own newly incorporated company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“merely working in the field of financial management or starting a financial advisory services business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“The newly submitted industry reports and articles submitted on motion do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“one letter is a "professional recommendation" that generally praises the Petitioner's skills but offers no details regarding the nature ofthe writer's relationship with the Petitioner or knowledge of her work.”

“nor did they show that her past experience renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the petition is filed.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “one letter is a "professional recommendation" that generally praises the Petitioner's skills but offers no details regarding the nature ofthe writer's relationship”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “she simply reasserts facts already considered by the Director on appeal.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

Notable

This decision is procedurally unusual: rather than addressing the merits of the underlying NIW denial, the AAO limited its review to whether the Director correctly dismissed the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen/reconsider, because the Petitioner appealed the motion decision rather than timely appealing the original denial. Substantive Dhanasar prong 1 and prong 2 discussion occurred only in the context of evaluating whether the motion to reopen presented new facts; prong 3 was never reached.

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. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak

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