dismissedFEB132025_02B52032025-02-13 · appeal · Nebraska 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 Beneficiary, an assistant vice president at a financial services company, proposed to continue his current role optimizing the company's digital payments transaction processing system using cloud computing, data analytics, and digital identity infrastructure technology.
Field: digital payments transaction processing / financial services technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The proposed endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential impact of the endeavor extends beyond the Petitioner and its clients”
“if in fact STEM worker shortages can be addressed by adding qualified professionals like the Beneficiary, they would be better addressed through the U.S. Department of Labor's labor certification process”
“The reports and articles do not discuss the Beneficiary's specific work having the claimed broader impact to his field, the economy, societal welfare, or national security”
“The Petitioner's letters make broad assertions about the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, instead of providing evidence detailing the Beneficiary's claimed unique contributions”
“The claimed economic and societal welfare benefits depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“make broad assertions about the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, instead of providing evidence detailing”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The reports and articles do not discuss the Beneficiary's specific work having the claimed broader impact to his field”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
AAO explicitly rejects the argument that STEM worker shortages establish national importance, stating such shortages 'would be better addressed through the U.S. Department of Labor's labor certification process.' Petitioner argued the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard; AAO rejected this, citing Chawathe's quality/quantity/probative-value framework.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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