dismissedDEC202023_03B52032023-12-20 · 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 systems analyst in IT, proposed to continue providing customized, performance-enhancing systems analysis services to employers and clients, including work touching e-commerce security.
Field: information technology / systems analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not shown that her services, for example, are better, cost less, or are freely available to the public, such that we could conclude that her services "deeply differ" from those already available.”
“the authors do not offer sufficient detail concerning the Petitioner's specific work in these areas or substantiate how the claimed impact is attributed to her specific work.”
“The Petitioner improperly relies upon the collective impact of all IT professionals as sufficient to establish the impact of her proposed endeavor”
“we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities of customized, performance enhancing services do not rise to the level of national importance because she has not established how her specific contributions would impact the IT field more broadly.”
“working for national entities, such as federal government agencies, does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific systems analyst work within such entities.”
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence of the impact of her proposed endeavor on national initiatives.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors do not offer sufficient detail concerning the Petitioner's specific work in these areas or substantiate how the claimed impact is attributed to her specific work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- 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
The Petitioner argued the Director's denial was 'generic and vague' and improperly failed to reach prongs 2 and 3; the AAO rejected this via the 'adopt and affirm' doctrine (citing Burbano, Giday, Chen) and reiterated that failure on any single Dhanasar prong is independently dispositive, so declining to reach the other prongs was not error.
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
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