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.
A human rights attorney currently employed at an NGO assisting underprivileged clients, who asserted future work related to legal aid and HIV-combat initiatives but did not specify a concrete future role or endeavor.
Field: human rights law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability; AAO reserved this issue but noted in a footnote that the Director's finding was unexplained and the record did not sufficiently establish expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not addressed what role he plans to occupy in human rights advocacy in the future with sufficient specificity”
“without more information about his specific proposed endeavor and how he plans to apply his knowledge and experience in the United States, we cannot conclude the Petitioner has met his burden”
“Without more, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated his proposed endeavor or detailed its nature.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“continuing employment in one's position, field, or industry is not an endeavor sufficient to evaluate it under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO identifies multiple independent alternate grounds for dismissal: failure to submit Form ETA-750B (procedural), failure to articulate a specific endeavor, and failure to establish prong 1. AAO also withdrew the Director's finding of national importance and, in a footnote, questioned (without formally ruling on) the Director's unexplained finding that Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp