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 proposed to work in the United States as an executive manager providing accounting and compliance, banking and finance, organizational restructuring, strategic management, and customer relationship services to impact the field of business.
Field: business management / finance and accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree in accounting sciences plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“do not sufficiently explain how his proposed endeavor to work as an executive manager and provide various services in the field of business offers benefits that extend beyond his employer or clients”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence”
“a shortage of qualified professionals is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide sufficient information and evidence to substantiate their claims that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“do not sufficiently explain how his proposed endeavor... offers benefits that extend beyond his employer or clients to impact the field of business more broadly”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“are relevant under the second prong of Dhanasar to support the claim that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or establish that his proposed endeavor is of national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO explicitly distinguishes evidence relevant to prong two (education, experience, professional achievements) from prong one's national-importance inquiry, reiterating that such evidence, though probative of positioning, cannot substitute for a showing that the specific endeavor's impact extends beyond the petitioner's employer or clients. The decision also rejects a labor-shortage argument by noting that worker shortages are addressed through the standard labor certification process rather than the NIW analysis.
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 L-A-C-
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