dismissedFEB212025_02B52032025-02-21 · motion_reconsider · 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 business and hospitality management specialist, proposed to work as a subject matter expert within established hospitality organizations to enhance industry practices in the U.S. through innovative solutions in the post-pandemic era.

Field: hospitality and tourism management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“On motion, the Petitioner still has not established the national importance of her endeavor.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective employers or clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the substance of both opinion letters' bodies did not support the conclusory statements serving as section headers”

“the record did not specify any number of workers the Petitioner believed the specific endeavor she proposed to undertake would cause her employer(s)...to hire”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the substance of both opinion letters' bodies did not support the conclusory statements serving as section headers”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the generalized "articles and reports" submitted by the Petitioner did not address the specific endeavor she proposed to undertake”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“an individual's prior academic and employment experience are immaterial to the issue of whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor...may have broader implications”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's motion repeats and restates the arguments and documents she believes supports the national importance of her endeavor that were introduced earlier”
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
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

This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal; the decision focuses heavily on the procedural inadequacy of the motion itself (mere disagreement, no legal error shown) in addition to reaffirming the prong 1 national importance failure. The AAO explicitly rejected the Petitioner's argument that it misapplied Dhanasar's economic-impact caveat, distinguishing her endeavor from research/pure-science endeavors that need not show quantifiable economic impact.

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. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer