dismissedJUL112024_04B52032024-07-11 · 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 proposed working as a business administrator and consultant providing strategic planning, risk management, project and investment analysis, and supplier data management to U.S. and foreign companies, while also training professionals in business administration and entrepreneurship.

Field: business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not, however, specify or demonstrate how her work with individual companies and trainees would have broader implications for the field of business operations.”

“the Petitioner proposes to work for individual companies and does not indicate that she would employ other individuals”

“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues to the field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her individual trainees to impact the field of business operations more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not, however, speak to the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“do not specify how the Petitioner's work for individual companies and trainees would extend beyond her employment to impact business operations on a national or global level”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“submitted articles discussing the importance of small businesses to the national economy but did not submit information regarding U.S. trade with Brazil or Latin America”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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 relied on Dhanasar's own facts (teaching activities, Congressional interest evidence) as a comparative benchmark to show the Petitioner's evidence fell short, e.g., citing Dhanasar's expert letters and media articles as contrast.

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
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show her work for individual client companies and trainees would extend beyond them to impact the field, economy, or workforce at a level of national importance.

Transferable lesson

Tie the specific endeavor's impact to concrete, evidenced national-scale effects (industry-wide, economic data, specific depressed areas) rather than generic claims of economic benefit.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area · government_interest

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer