dismissedDEC192024_02B52032024-12-19 · motion_reconsider · 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 finance technologist for a U.S. electric power company, claiming her work would broadly impact economic stability, energy security, innovation, and STEM skills development.

Field: finance technology (electric power company) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish the claimed national importance of her proposed endeavor as a company finance employee.”

“the record lacks specific, objective, and probative evidence that the proposed company work will have broader implications in her field beyond her employer and its clientele”

“the record evidence did not establish that the proposed work has broader implications for the related fields and industries, or it specifically furthers the stated objectives in a nationally significant manner”

“she does not explain why or how this constitutes error, particularly given Dhanasar's instruction to consider and focus on the specific endeavor's prospective impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they focus on her experience, skills, and the value of her profession, and relates to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“record evidence (primarily including her declarations, support letters, and general industry reports) did not establish that the proposed work has broader implications”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may reiterate in essence, the same assertions and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“they focus on her experience, skills, and the value of her profession, and relates to 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
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 AAO had already dismissed the appeal on P1 grounds; this motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner merely reiterated prior arguments without identifying specific legal or policy error. The decision notes a typographical artifact ('national impotence' appears to be an OCR or drafting error for 'national importance'). The AAO explicitly noted that documents the Petitioner highlighted as overlooked had in fact been addressed and found relevant only to P2, not P1.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner's motion merely reiterated appeal arguments and evidence (expert letters, research) that addressed her qualifications (prong 2), failing to show any legal or factual error in the prior finding that national importance (prong 1) was unestablished.

Transferable lesson

On motions to reconsider, identify a specific legal/factual error in the prior decision; do not simply resubmit prong-2-style evidence as proof of prong-1 national importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · stem_positive_factor · other

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer