The Petitioner, a financial executive with prior career experience in Brazil, proposed to continue working as a financial executive (e.g., CFO-type role) in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established the that he meets the national importance portion of the first prong under the Dhanasar analysis”

“does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”

“we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his proposed endeavor, not the importance or economic benefits of his profession or industry”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's role as a financial executive stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) to impact the industry more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his proposed endeavor, not the importance or economic benefits of his profession or industry”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO agreed threshold EB-2 and prong 1 substantial merit were met, but found national importance sub-element unmet based on lack of evidence of broader economic/industry impact; expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, calling prong 1 an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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