dismissedJUN072024_04B52032024-06-07 · 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 business manager with experience in finance and human resources, proposed to provide specialized administrative, financial, and HR services to help small and medium-sized U.S. businesses improve operations, profitability, and job creation.
Field: business management/finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“While her endeavor may directly impact her employers and prospective clients, the evidence does not suggest how these benefits would reach the finance industry overall”
“It is important to note that the shortage of business managers and business professionals does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- contract revenue · discounted
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, resting dismissal solely on prong 1's national importance failure; the letter of intent from a Massachusetts company was noted but not enough to establish broader impact.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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