dismissedAUG232023_04B52032023-08-23 · appeal · 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 pastor, proposed to continue leading church services and to operate a 12-week 'Detox and Healing Program' offering trauma and substance-abuse recovery services to her Spanish-speaking congregation and community in the Houston area.

Field: pastoral ministry / community substance-abuse and trauma recovery services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner's master's degree was obtained after the petition was filed, so it could not establish advanced-degree eligibility at filing; alternatively, employer letters lacked specific descriptions of duties and did not establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in her specialty.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her recovery program or church congregation to impact her field, U.S. public health, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“The aforementioned letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work ... offers broader implications in her field”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The aforementioned letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation ... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work ... offers broader implications”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted letters from her employers with a specific description of her duties showing ... progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, received her master's degree after filing the petition”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

The AAO acknowledged the Director's RFE erroneously implied the first Dhanasar prong was satisfied, calling the resulting denial on that ground potentially inequitable, but proceeded to independently review and deny on the first prong de novo anyway; the decision expressly rests on two independent, alternate grounds (threshold advanced-degree failure and Dhanasar prong 1 failure).

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)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer