dismissedJAN242022_01B52032022-01-24 · 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 IT specialist, proposed to work 'in-house' for U.S. companies of various sizes, developing, implementing, and managing information technology systems and projects.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications in terms of significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, beyond the Petitioner's employer and clients”
“he would "offer his services for companies as an in-house [sic]," without elaborating on how providing services for a specific employer would have broader implications to rise to the level of national importance”
“The letter authors' discussion of the Petitioner's prior accomplishments are material to the second Dhanasar prong...not material to the first prong”
“the Petitioner's "mainly past achievements" and qualifications referenced on appeal...are not material to whether the specific endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“material to the second Dhanasar prong...not material to whether the specific endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“do not address how the prospective "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" may have national importance”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“do not address how the prospective endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“does not address the prospective endeavor and how it may rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“may not establish eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
746coded 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 AAO clarified that the Director had not improperly limited national importance analysis to geographic scope, and separately rejected reliance on a company the petitioner founded after the filing date, citing Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. for the eligibility-at-filing rule.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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