dismissedAPR152025_02B52032025-04-15 · 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.

Petitioner sought to continue work as a health and safety specialist serving U.S. companies and government entities, training others in safety compliance, and developing a comprehensive safety app with training modules, hazard alerts, and interactive tools for the manufacturing sector.

Field: health and safety specialist / manufacturing safety compliance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found petitioner met three criteria for exceptional ability but the totality of evidence did not establish the requisite degree of expertise; AAO agreed Director's decision lacked substantive analysis on this point but did not need to resolve it given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor would extend beyond his employer and its clients to impact workplace safety at a level of national importance”

“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the record does not establish how this safety app would impact workplace safety on a national or even global scale, beyond the Petitioner's own employer and the employer's clients who utilize his app”

“he has not demonstrated these employment positions have arisen or would arise directly from his own endeavor nor substantiated that these numbers would have a national impact on the U.S. manufacturing sector”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor would extend beyond his employer and its clients to impact workplace safety at a level of national importance”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish how this safety app would impact workplace safety on a national or even global scale”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“he has not demonstrated these employment positions have arisen or would arise directly from his own endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

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 explicitly acknowledged the Director's denial 'lacks substantive analysis' regarding exceptional ability but proceeded to dismiss on prong 1 national importance grounds anyway, declining to remedy the deficient threshold analysis since it was not dispositive.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer