The Petitioner sought to work in the United States as a human resources and marketing communications specialist, seeking an EB-2 national interest waiver based on exceptional ability.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“she did not offer sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rose to the level of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States”

“we acknowledged that the field of human resources is important, as conveyed by the probative research”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“she did not establish that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “We have already thoroughly considered this evidence in our prior decision.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide any new, probative fact to establish that we erred in dismissing the appeal”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “we have already thoroughly considered this evidence in our prior decision”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “we acknowledged that the field of human resources is important, as conveyed by the probative research”

  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
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

The Petitioner argued the AAO erred by not following Dhanasar as binding precedent under Matter of E-L-H-; the AAO distinguished the case on its facts, finding the petitioner's evidence (expert letters, business plan, letters of intent) analogous in type but not in substance to that in Dhanasar, and reiterated that it need not detail every piece of evidence considered, citing Medtronic v. Daig for the presumption that adjudicators review all evidence.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho

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