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 variously described a proposed endeavor as a project director launching GIS-based renewable energy business expansion, as a business manager mentoring minority-owned small and medium enterprises, and as a GIS/geospatial-intelligence consultant improving profitability for energy companies.
Field: renewable energy / GIS business consulting and SME mentorship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“We consequently conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is ill-defined and we are unable to evaluate it for eligibility under any of the three prongs contained in the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's execution of that proposed endeavor.”
“Simply proposing an endeavor adjacent to an area of substantial merit or special concern to the United States does not render such an endeavor nationally important as a default.”
“it is not sufficiently apparent from the record how the benefits of the Petitioner's utilization of expertise in GIS in the renewable energy sector or oil and gas exploration permeate beyond their immediate employer”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the letters of support, whilst speaking of the Petitioner very favorably, are not sufficient to demonstrate interest or support in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“So we are not able to evaluate whether the Petitioner is making progress towards achieving their endeavor if we cannot fully comprehend ... how they would accomplish the activities of their proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“The record does not contain sufficient evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these opinion statement do not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance either”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's demonstration of prior similar work does not have an influence on the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not readily identify ... how they intended to prosecute their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
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
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
Notable
The AAO found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was expressed in three materially different ways across the initial petition, RFE response, and appeal (project director, DEI-focused SME mentor, and GIS/energy consultant), and treated this shifting description as an independent, foundational defect undermining analysis under all three Dhanasar prongs, citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi against material post-filing changes to the endeavor.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of Y-B-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The proposed endeavor was inconsistently redefined across filing, RFE response, and appeal, making it impossible to evaluate substantial merit, national importance, or second-prong positioning; alternatively, even each variant lacked evidence of broader national-scale impact.
Define the proposed endeavor once, precisely, and consistently from initial filing onward, and support it with evidence tied to its broader prospective national-scale impact, not personal credentials.
vague
economic_growth_generic · government_interest · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution