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 information systems manager, proposed to provide IT consulting and business-intelligence services to U.S. companies, and eventually open her own consulting firm.
Field: information technology / information systems management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed work as an information systems manager would impact the information technology field more broadly than a single employer, client, or project”
“she has not shown that her proposed IT consulting activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States”
“Assertions made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and do not carry the weight to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof”
“she has not demonstrated that the specific work she proposes to undertake has broader implications on a national or global level”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · 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 - media · discounted
“she has not demonstrated that the specific work she proposes to undertake has broader implications on a national or global level”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she has not shown that her proposed IT consulting activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO explicitly notes that findings on the first prong alone are dispositive and treats them as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal; footnote clarifies Dhanasar vacated the prior NYSDOT framework, though this case is decided entirely under Dhanasar.
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, 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