dismissedMAR122024_04B52032024-03-12 · 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 administrator, proposed to provide services in team management, direct sales, and leadership focused on sales and leadership industries, including training new leaders and developing sales campaigns.
Field: business administration/management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not provided any details regarding his techniques or methodologies, whether they are unavailable in the United States or better than that which is already offered in the United States”
“While individual employer or company may benefit from his business services, he has not offered a sufficient explanation or corroborating evidence for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or specific impact of his endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the expert opinion letter is not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's proposed activities in his professional plan entail typical work of a business administrator”
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
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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) confirming NIW denials are discretionary; expert opinion letter's reliance on U.S.-Brazil non-NATO ally designation to argue national importance was rejected as not tied to Petitioner's actual proposed work.
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-
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