dismissedJUL282021_02B52032021-07-28 · 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, a supply chain manager, proposed to work for a U.S. employer directing supply chain, logistics, and inventory functions, and later founded two small consulting companies to offer supply-chain and logistics consulting services, including leveraging his knowledge of the Brazilian market.

Field: supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner entered his accounting occupation before obtaining a bachelor's degree, so it did not meet the regulatory definition of a profession, and he lacked the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience at the time of filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the above passage describes the general duties of a supply chain manager, but it provides no specific details about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“Because no blanket waiver exists for supply chain managers, the Petitioner cannot establish eligibility for the national interest waiver based solely or primarily on his intention to seek employment.”

“Vague and unsupported speculation of this kind does not suffice to establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“Rising demand for qualified workers in the Petitioner's field does not indicate that the work of any one supply chain manager is of national importance.”

“the collective impact of logistics and supply chain management does not impute national importance to the activities of any one particular supply chain manager.”

“The lack of detail in the initial filing, followed by significant new developments, raises questions as to whether the Petitioner had fully formed his proposed endeavor at the time of filing.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how his revised plan has national importance, rather than primarily benefiting his own employer or clients.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“The receipts do not describe the services that [the company] provided in return for those payments.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner did not have the required minimum of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Rising demand for qualified workers in the Petitioner's field does not indicate that the work of any one supply chain manager is of national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“General statistics about Brazilian trade do not suffice in this regard, because this information does not establish the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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

1,312coded 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 devoted significant discussion to rebutting the Petitioner's claim that the Director had mischaracterized his employment history (confusing him with an accountant), finding the Director's decision was based on the correct record. The AAO also noted the Petitioner formed a second company about two weeks after the denial, which it treated as a further deviation from the endeavor as described at filing, undermining the claim that the endeavor was fully formed at filing. Threshold EB-2 issue was analyzed and found failed, but the AAO reserved the exceptional-ability alternative claim and prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary to the outcome.

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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to define a specific endeavor beyond generic job duties and did not show his work's impact rose above employer-level significance to national importance.

Transferable lesson

Define a concrete, fixed-at-filing endeavor with quantified, endeavor-specific projected impact—industry-wide statistics and generic job descriptions cannot substitute for individualized national-importance evidence.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer