dismissedSEP032026_01B52032026-09-03 · 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.
To strengthen the interpretability, transparency, and supervisory alignment of U.S. financial regulatory risk frameworks through development of financial risk metrics, value-at-risk backtesting, and stress-testing methodologies.
Field: financial risk management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated her proposed endeavor in layman's terms to properly understand its asserted national importance.”
“the Petitioner's assertions of potential prospective national impact are non-specific and based on mere general alignment with national priorities of major financial agencies and institutions.”
“the provided evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner submitted no evidence to demonstrate that her scholarly work generated any attention in her field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“there is no indication that there is specific interest from the U.S. government regarding the advancement of Beneficiary's proposed frameworks”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
2,589coded 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 disagreed with USCIS's threshold finding that the endeavor lacked substantial merit but still dismissed on national importance, and separately faulted the petitioner for leaving unclear whether she would pursue continued industry employment or a more scholarly research path.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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