NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP282023_08B52032023-09-28 · 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, proposed to continue working in finance in the U.S., using methodologies such as discounted cash flow analysis and an industry-review template to provide financial strategies to companies.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (insufficient evidence of five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty and no completed advanced degree at filing), and further found she did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability because she met only one or two of the six regulatory criteria.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not contain sufficient probative, relevant, and credible documentation to support the appeal brief's contention that methods such as the DCF model”
“there is no indication that this spreadsheet, or any of the Petitioner's other work, has been or is likely to be adopted beyond her employers”
“This statement does not quantify what economic benefit the Petitioner's individual work as a financial analyst would generate”
“does not specify how her employment, in and of itself, would resolve this shortage or impact it on a national level”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · credited
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the evidence does not establish that her employment with [ ] and [ ] was full-time”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “does not establish that it is an association of professionals as contemplated by regulation”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “none of these letters name an achievement or significant contribution that the Petitioner has made to the field of finance”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “this evidence does not establish the salaries of workers who are comparable to the Petitioner”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded 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 withdrew the Director's EB-2 eligibility finding sua sponte, holding the petitioner failed both the advanced-degree-professional and exceptional-ability pathways, though this was not the stated basis for denial; despite finding this dispositive, AAO nonetheless proceeded to also analyze and deny on NIW prong one (national importance), reserving prongs two and three.

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)
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer