dismissedDEC102024_03B52032024-12-10 · 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 facilities manager, proposed to elevate her career in facilities and project management, either working for U.S. organizations or as an independent consultant, asserting benefits to workplace safety, employee well-being, job creation, and tax revenue.
Field: facilities and project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently described their proposed endeavor beyond the sphere of individuals or entities seeking out their services.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future customers and employer(s) to impact her field”
“the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor and how it would extend beyond her employer(s) and clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are not material, relevant, or probative to an evaluation of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not address the Petitioner's professional plans, the specific proposed endeavor described therein, its prospective substantial economic impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“primarily highlight her academic credentials and years of professional work experience...are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
Petitioner argued the Director applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard by not discussing every piece of evidence, citing Buletini v. INS; AAO distinguished Buletini, holding it does not require discussion of each piece of evidence. Expert opinion letter from an associate professor of marketing was discounted for not addressing the specific proposed endeavor.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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