dismissedAUG122021_03B52032021-08-12 · 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 security officer with experience in counterterrorism, security management, and conflict resolution, proposed to provide consulting or policy advice to U.S. federal agencies or work in law enforcement/security roles in the United States.
Field: security/counterterrorism and law enforcement · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Considering the totality of the evidence, the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's specific endeavor(s).”
“generally describing broad areas of experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner might consult with or provide advice to federal agencies without evidence is insufficient”
“the professor appears to conflate the eligibility requirements in the Dhanasar first prong, in part, with the framework put forth in Matter of New York State Dep't of Transp.”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's consulting projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in or explain the national importance of his proposed work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss the Petitioner's prospective endeavor in the United States”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates 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
- 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
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that substantial merit was established, and criticized a supporting expert opinion letter for improperly conflating the vacated NYSDOT framework with the Dhanasar first prong.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution