dismissedMAR062025_02B52032025-03-06 · 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 Beneficiary, a financial manager at a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer, proposed to continue implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software for financial management and accounting at the company's U.S. facility.
Field: financial management / ERP software implementation in pharmaceutical manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these letters do not provide specific information concerning how his proposed endeavor to continue his work at thel Ilocation will”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that the individual will undertake.”
“shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of any resulting positive impact to the U.S. economy”
“The Petitioner has not properly documented how the Beneficiary's continued work at the company would impact the field of pharmaceutical manufacturing more broadly.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not illuminate how the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would be of national importance to the United States.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not speak to how specific work conducted by the Beneficiary would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”
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
- 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 as advisory, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-; case turned entirely on failure to distinguish the beneficiary's specific endeavor from the general importance of ERP software/pharmaceutical manufacturing industry.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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