dismissedJAN172024_03B52032024-01-17 · 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 intended to continue working as a public relations specialist/consultant in the United States, applying his prior knowledge and experience to serve U.S. companies, without specifying a distinct project or plan beyond general occupational duties.

Field: public relations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not provide sufficient specific information about how he will conduct his endeavor.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.”

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

“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“he does not describe what his prospective endeavor will specifically entail and how it will benefit our nation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the analysis offered in professor Q-'s letter is largely limited to general observations about the Petitioner's qualifications and the occupation and industry”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not describe what his prospective endeavor will specifically entail and how it will benefit our nation.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“did not submit plans or offer explanations sufficient to address how he would provide such services to U.S. companies”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit or that it would have economic or other impacts rising to the level of national importance.”
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

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

The Director's RFE contained contradictory statements about whether the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification, and the Director's denial did not resolve that issue; the AAO expressly declined to reach it, resolving the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1.

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
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer