dismissedSEP262023_08B52032023-09-26 · appeal · Nebraska 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 Brazilian business/finance professional, proposed to serve as CFO of his own Florida import-export company (later described instead as providing independent business and financial consulting services to U.S. companies).

Field: business and finance administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“his specific proposed endeavor is uncertain, and we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity”

“the shortage of financial and accounting professionals does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the record contains no documentation establishing the existence of the Petitioner's claimed U.S. company”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · ignored
“the record is devoid of documentation, such as a business plan or sales forecast”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor remains unclear”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,312coded 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 found the Petitioner materially and inconsistently changed his proposed endeavor between the initial filing (CFO of his own company) and the RFE response (independent consulting services), undermining specificity; Petitioner's citation of two unpublished EB-1 non-precedent AAO decisions sustaining appeals was rejected as inapposite and non-binding.

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(c)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer