dismissedJUL052024_06B52032024-07-05 · 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 storage administration, disaster recovery, network management, database performance/security, and systems administration.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“they do not offer any specific, persuasive detail regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how the endeavor's impact would have broader implications extending beyond the companies and clients that he will serve”
“the Petitioner does not offer specific evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
“simply working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“The record contains insufficient evidence that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
“the activities described in his professional plan describe the typical duties of an IT professional and do not adequately show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have such broader impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer any specific, persuasive detail regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“they do not offer any specific, persuasive detail regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the activities described in his professional plan describe the typical duties of an IT professional”
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
- 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
- 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
AAO footnote clarifies that failure to address prong 2 in the Director's decision does not mean prong 2 was conceded, since prong 1 failure was dispositive and other prongs need not be reached.
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-
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