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 commercial manager with experience in administrative, commercial, and graphic design work, proposed to continue as a commercial manager implementing market-expansion and digital-marketing strategies for U.S. companies, while also teaching and training others in the field.
Field: commercial management / marketing and sales · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner not an advanced degree professional (unchallenged on appeal, deemed waived) and, in the RFE, that she met 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria but failed the final merits determination; AAO expressly reserved this issue, resolving the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Even accepting these outcomes are possible, the Petitioner has not explained how these outcomes will be realized in sufficient detail and she has not demonstrated how these outcomes will have an impact beyond herself and the clients she serves.”
“The Petitioner's argument that her past achievements demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor is without merit as past achievements relate to Dhanasar's second prong.”
“the Director points out that the Petitioner failed to elaborate on how, at a level that is nationally important, the Petitioner will generate jobs and tax revenue, strengthen U.S. companies, and contribute to the U.S. economy.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained how these outcomes will be realized in sufficient detail and she has not demonstrated how these outcomes will have an impact beyond herself and the clients she serves.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters do not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have the broader implications envisioned by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience relates more specifically to second prong considerations.”
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
Notable
AAO expressly reserved the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification issue, resolving the appeal entirely on Dhanasar prong 1 (national importance) as dispositive; also noted that the Petitioner's argument regarding erroneous conclusions of law was rejected for conflating past field-related achievements (a prong 2 consideration) with the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor (prong 1).
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Section 291 of the Act
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