dismissedDEC032024_06B52032024-12-03 · 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 foreign trade specialist, proposed to perform commercial strategic planning and international negotiations/partnerships in the aeronautics purchasing sector, including an 'aerochain optimization initiative' and volunteer strategic-planning work for NGOs.
Field: foreign trade / commercial strategic planning in aeronautics purchasing sector · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Director determined that the Petitioner will be limited to serving the clientele of the company she will be potentially working for and that the evidence in the record did not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor will extend beyond the organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner's documentation does not support her assertions that her proposed endeavor would lead to economic stability or growth or demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would result in national or global implications for the field”
“the Petitioner does not explain how her proposed endeavor would offer benefits extending beyond her trainees to impact the field of aeronautics more broadly.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letter described the Petitioner's skills and experience and relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how her proposed endeavor would offer benefits extending beyond her trainees to impact the field of aeronautics more broadly.”
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
- 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 Director had found the endeavor's substantial merit and the second Dhanasar prong satisfied, but not national importance; AAO expressly reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue and prongs 2/3 as unnecessary to the disposition, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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