The Petitioner, a computer user support specialist, proposed to advance his career as an IT specialist providing services to small and large businesses in the private and public sectors in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's RFE response focused on generalized information regarding information technology and business, without elaborating on the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“the Petitioner's discussion of a labor shortage in information technology positions does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”

“The proposed endeavor-as described in the record-appears to benefit the Petitioner, whose career will be advanced, any current or potential employer(s)”

“filling one vacant position at a time, at one unspecified, small or large business in the public or private sector, in some unspecified location”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “do not discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Director had denied on exceptional-ability grounds without addressing advanced-degree eligibility, and had oddly proceeded to analyze the NIW prongs despite finding threshold ineligibility; AAO declined to resolve this inconsistency, reserving the threshold EB-2 question entirely and deciding solely on prong 1's national importance failure. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's argument that STEM-field advanced degree status bears on national importance analysis.

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 L-A-C-

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