dismissedSEP202021_06B52032021-09-20 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 with expertise in Brazilian markets, proposed to work in U.S. financial services advising on cross-border investment, and later, on appeal, to start a new business helping U.S. and Brazilian clients with investment and market-expansion consulting.
Field: financial analysis / financial services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and clientele to impact the financial services industry or U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner's reliance on the professor's determination that a petitioner may meet the first Dhanasar prong based on the importance of the industry or profession in which he will work is misplaced.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his company's future staffing and revenue levels stand to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States.”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed business rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
1,358coded 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 explicitly declined to weigh other deficiencies in the professor's opinion letter 'for the sake of brevity,' and clarified petitioner need not have a specific job offer since he sought a waiver of that requirement.
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-
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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