dismissedAUG142024_03B52032024-08-14 · motion_reconsider · 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.
The Petitioner, a supply chain specialist, proposed to continue working in the supply chain industry, without further specifying the nature or scope of the endeavor.
Field: supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“his expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, and does not establish the national importance of his endeavor”
“there may be a shortage of professionals in the industry, but he does not explain how filling his position would have a national influence”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail the proposed endeavor beyond working in the supply chain industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“his expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, and does not establish the national importance of his endeavor”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“restating the matters discussed on appeal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
1,581coded 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
This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO found the Petitioner failed to identify any specific legal or policy error, merely restating prior arguments, and applied the O-S-G- standard that disagreement without demonstrating legal error is not grounds for reconsideration.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
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