dismissedDEC022021_01B52032021-12-02 · 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 proposed to work in the U.S. as a business analyst with in-depth knowledge of the Brazilian oil and gas, consumer products, and real estate industries.
Field: business analysis (oil and gas, consumer products, real estate industries) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The claimed "ripple effects," however, are not well explained or documented in the record.”
“We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals.”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“the Petitioner does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) and/or clients to impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“This business opportunity materialized after the filing of the petition, and therefore would not establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 Petitioner attempted to rely on a new CEO position at a flower company obtained after filing to bolster national importance; the AAO rejected this under the Matter of Katigbak time-of-filing rule.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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