dismissedDEC112024_07B52032024-12-11 · 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 proposed to continue working as a Sales Manager at a logistics company, providing pre-sale consulting, sales support, strategy optimization, and operational support services to U.S. logistics companies.
Field: logistics/supply chain management (sales manager) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 advanced degree professional classification; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner's endeavor to "continue working as a Sales Manager at _ _ _ _ _ _ will impact business at the level of national importance”
“he has not established on appeal that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar' s second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's general objections on appeal regarding his eligibility for the EB-2 classification are insufficient to overcome the conclusions the Director reached”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material...they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor...stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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
AAO explicitly clarifies that professional experience, qualifications, and achievements are generally immaterial to prong 1 and instead relevant to prong 2, directly addressing petitioner's conflation of personal success with endeavor importance.
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
- Chen v. INS
- 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