dismissedAPR052023_02B52032023-04-05 · combined · 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, an avionics engineer, sought to continue work in her field in the United States, though the specific proposed endeavor's importance was not detailed in this motion decision.

Field: avionics engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded 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

This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider the AAO's own prior appellate dismissal, not the original denial; the Petitioner's argument that the Director ignored updated STEM policy guidance was rejected because the appeal predated the January 2022 policy update and the Petitioner failed to specify what evidentiary considerations were overlooked or submit new evidence. Much of the underlying evidence was noted as dated 2013-2018 and never updated.

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. 103.5
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer