dismissedJUN212024_09B52032024-06-21 · 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, an IT project manager, proposed to continue working with American companies implementing technology projects and processes to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure regulatory compliance.

Field: IT project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but the AAO found only two of the required three evidentiary criteria satisfied (withdrawing the Director's finding on membership); the record did not establish at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). The advanced-degree-professional claim was deemed abandoned since not addressed in RFE response or on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established how the project management services she intends to provide to future employer(s) in the United States would have broader implications in the IT industry”

“the record does not explain and provide adequate support to demonstrate how her proposed endeavor would help businesses worldwide or impact the financial services technology field at a national level”

“she does not clarify how many and has not offered sufficient evidence that her endeavor would result in substantial economic benefits through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · discounted
“without evidence, such as the membership requirements, which demonstrates that either association requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree for membership”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited
other · discounted
“she has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text

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

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 partially sided with petitioner by withdrawing Director's finding on the substantial-merit component of prong 1 and on one exceptional-ability criterion, but still dismissed for failure to meet the three-criteria threshold for exceptional ability and for failure to establish national importance under prong 1; prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.

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(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer