The Petitioner proposed to manage IT projects, using his 20 years of IT expertise and people management skills to contribute to the growth, development, and productivity of new professionals and companies and thereby boost the U.S. economy.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the author does not explain how these benefits would extend beyond the organization the Petitioner would be assisting and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly”

“they do not evidence the broader impact of the Petitioner's work”

“the Petitioner has not established how his proposed endeavor's impact would extend to the broader field or industry sufficient to establish its national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “his resume identifies his skills and experience, they do not evidence the broader impact of the Petitioner's work”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “although the letters praise his qualifications and professional accomplishments... they do not evidence the broader impact of the Petitioner's work”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the matter here is not whether IT initiatives or the field is nationally important”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “Such programs lead toward professional certificates, not graduate degrees”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the documents are not in the form of letter(s) from his current or former employer(s) or trainer(s)”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on advanced degree professional status (a rare adverse reversal on a point the Director had found in Petitioner's favor), and also withdrew the Director's finding that the endeavor had substantial merit was affirmed but reversed on national importance despite Director having found petitioner 'well-positioned' (prong 2) - AAO nonetheless declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, effectively bypassing the Director's own favorable prong 2 finding without comment on its continued validity.

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(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• 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