dismissedAPR102025_03B52032025-04-10 · 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, an IT manager, proposed to continue working as an IT manager in the U.S., providing services to businesses by integrating ITIL, COBIT, Scrum, and PMP methodologies into a unified IT governance model, while also training others in the field.

Field: information technology management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed all six exceptional-ability criteria but failed to establish at least three: did not show 10 years of full-time experience (letters lacked job-duty descriptions or were from employment after filing), did not show a salary commensurate with exceptional ability, and did not show that his professional association required a U.S. bachelor's degree or equivalent for membership. He was credited only with the license/certification criterion; the achievements/contributions criterion was also found unmet, and one criterion was reserved as unnecessary to decide.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”

“he does not identify what, if any, cutting-edge technologies he will introduce”

“he does not establish the economic effects directly attributable to his proposed work”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”

“Dr. B-W- does not explain how these benefits, even if realized, would broadly impact the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not otherwise provided letters from former employers sufficiently documenting his past experience”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the record does not establish that the association requires its members to have obtained a U.S. bachelor's degree or equivalent”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not explain how his work resulted in significant contributions to his field, beyond the immediate benefit to his former employers and customers”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Dr. B-W- does not explain how these benefits, even if realized, would broadly impact the field”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

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

The AAO found the Petitioner's failure to meet at least three exceptional-ability criteria and the failure of Dhanasar prong 1 both dispositive, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad. The decision also addressed and rejected as harmless error the Director's use of an incorrect pronoun for the Petitioner.

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
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of O-R-E-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer