dismissedAUG012023_07B52032023-08-01 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a customer service provider and manager, proposed to work in customer service and management in the U.S., though on RFE she asserted a new intent to open and operate her own boutique hotel in New York.
Field: customer service and hospitality management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular customer service and management services rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific employment services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective employer(s), to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating her own business”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 declined to consider the Petitioner's shift on RFE from a customer-service employment endeavor to opening her own hotel, treating it as a materially changed set of facts arising after filing under Matter of Izummi/Bardouille, and evaluated only the originally proposed endeavor.
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
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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