dismissedFEB142024_04B52032024-02-14 · 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 Petitioner, a human resource management professional, sought to bring her HR generalist knowledge, experience, and skills to work in the U.S., or alternatively to establish an HR consultancy.

Field: human resource management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with Director that Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on her degree evaluation and progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“neither her personal statement, nor the recommendation letters established the broader implications of her proposed endeavor or that her endeavor would benefit anyone, beyond herself and her future employer”

“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of human resource management, as contemplated by Dhanasar”

“the potential growth of a field or industry or a labor shortage within a particular field or industry is not generally relevant to our analysis of whether the endeavor is of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims that her endeavor will create a sufficiently meaningful impact in the economy”

“she has not demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“lauded her work as a professional with strong capabilities across the field of human resources management”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“her professional experience relates to Dhanasar's second prong but does not speak to or establish the national importance of her endeavor”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
degree · credited
other · discounted
“she has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her potential employment or her future clients”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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 addressed and excused RFE typos by the Director that mischaracterized Petitioner's field (as IT/electrical engineering) as harmless, finding remand unwarranted because the evidentiary deficiency would persist regardless.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer