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 software developer, proposed to continue working in the U.S. as a software developer/IT consultant for companies and clients, and also to pursue self-employed consulting opportunities in the IT field.
Field: software development / IT consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional based on his bachelor's degree plus five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience; this was not disputed by the Director.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and clientele to impact his field or the nation more broadly”
“he has not sufficiently articulated or documented how his independent consultant activities would impact his field, beyond providing services to his own clients”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“considering the record in its entirety, we conclude that the Petitioner does not adequately describe or demonstrate how his future software development work stands to rise to the level of having national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not substantiate that this documentation has or will engender wider interest or use within the IT field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and consulting experience, however, are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO expressly rejected the Petitioner's 'looming shortage of IT talent' argument as insufficient absent evidence of job creation or economic impact, and reiterated in a footnote that Dhanasar vacated the prior NYSDOT framework.
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.
- 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