dismissedJUL072023_03B52032023-07-07 · 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 sought to continue working as an operations manager overseeing computerized cutting and fabrication of metal building components for his current construction employer.

Field: computerized metal cutting and fabrication / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found the Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (foreign credential equated only to a U.S. associate's degree, and experience cannot substitute for a bachelor's degree) nor as an individual of exceptional ability (met only 2 of 6 regulatory criteria: education and 10 years' experience; failed certification, salary, membership, and recognition criteria).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown how his proposed work for his employer will potentially have broader implications for the industry or substantial positive economic effects for the region or nation”

“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”

“these expert opinion letters do not support the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“these reports show the national importance of the construction industry as a whole, and therefore do not support the importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that his degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited
certification membership · discounted
“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
recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters were prepared for purposes of this petition”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“even if the Petitioner had submitted sufficient evidence of his salary, this evidence is not a sufficient basis for comparison”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

media · discounted
“these reports show the national importance of the construction industry as a whole, and therefore do not support the importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

AAO withdrew the Director's implicit finding of advanced-degree eligibility and conducted a full independent threshold EB-2 analysis (both advanced degree and exceptional ability tracks) because the Director's decision was unclear on this point. AAO also reached and analyzed Dhanasar prong 1 despite the threshold failure being independently sufficient, then declined prongs 2 and 3.

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
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