dismissedAUG232021_07B52032021-08-23 · 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, an HR manager/recruitment professional, sought to continue working in human resources in the United States, variously describing this as employment with an unnamed employer, freelance consulting, or operating his own newly-registered staffing agency.

Field: human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, finding no credential evaluation establishing his Egyptian MBA's U.S. equivalency and no showing that a bachelor's degree was the minimum requirement for entry into his occupation (he was hired before earning his bachelor's degree). AAO declined to reach exceptional ability given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's statement in response to the RFE does not mention I Ithrough which he had previously performed freelance HR work”

“This open-ended assertion identifies potential options rather than a specific proposed endeavor.”

“This assertion relates to the collective importance of HR specialists, but does not explain how his work, in particular, would have national importance.”

“Importance to a specific company or organization does not necessarily translate into national importance.”

“General assertions about the importance of HR management rely on the collective, aggregate impact of everyone working in the field”

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“The record does not contain a credential evaluation or other documentary evidence to establish the necessary equivalency.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“Prior to the appeal, the Petitioner identified his field, but not the specific endeavor required under Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“Therefore, the record contained no information about the company for the Director to consider at the time of the denial.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored

Where this case turned

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

746coded 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 found a threshold classification defect (no degree equivalency evaluation; profession requirement not met since a bachelor's degree was earned five years after entry into the occupation) but did not make that dispositive, instead resolving the appeal on Dhanasar prong 1 (national importance), reserving exceptional-ability and prongs 2-3. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's post-denial submission of a newly formed staffing company and business plan as untimely evidence not before the Director at time of decision.

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)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer