The Petitioner sought to continue working as an operations manager of computerized cuts and fabrication of metallic structures for his Texas employer, claiming his work applied information technology to manufacturing/construction processes.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the focus of the Dhanasar framework's first prong is the petitioner's specific endeavor, not the entire industry or field in which they work.”

“the statement does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his employer and its clients to impact his field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“The economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed work and the claimed results.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “reference letters from the Petitioner's former employers did not show his 'significant contributions to the industry or field.'”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “it does not show that this certification is required for entry into the Petitioner's occupation or is specifically tailored for that occupation.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the articles and reports in the record do not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, instead focusing on government initiatives and the importance of technology and the construction industry.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “a letter from the Petitioner's former employer stating that the Petitioner 'would make $3500 monthly' in his position was not sufficient to show his salary or renumeration for services.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 'new facts.'”

  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

Notable

Combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal; AAO's threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability failure operates alongside the Dhanasar prong-1 failure as an independent dispositive basis, while prongs 2 and 3 remain expressly reserved per Bagamasbad. AAO also rejected Petitioner's attempt to use prong-2-type qualification evidence (IT knowledge, experience) to satisfy prong 1's national-importance inquiry, explicitly distinguishing the two prongs.

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)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of O-S-G-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(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