dismissedFEB262021_03B52032021-02-26 · 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, an emergency management specialist, proposed to continue work in homeland security focused on active shooter scenarios, including establishing his own consulting organization providing active shooter protocol training and threat assessments to houses of worship.

Field: emergency management / homeland security (active shooter protocol consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but only met the official academic record criterion; failed to establish certification/license, salary, professional membership, or recognition criteria, and did not qualify for comparable evidence.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer or future clientele to impact his field or U.S. security interests more broadly”

“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and consulting activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in”

“these letters do not explain the national importance of his proposed work under the Dhanasar's first prong”

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · discounted
“These certificates represent completion of individual training courses and not a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered documentation showing that his earnings are indicative of exceptional ability relative to others in his field”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not explain the national importance of his proposed work under the Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where he plans to operate his company is economically depressed”
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
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

Decision dismissed on two independent alternate grounds: failure of the exceptional ability threshold classification AND failure of Dhanasar prong 1, with the AAO explicitly stating each is an independent basis for dismissal. Petitioner's post-filing job offer, pay statements, and membership certificates were rejected as evidence under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) for post-dating the petition filing.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer