dismissedMAR132023_04B52032023-03-13 · 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 human resources manager, sought to continue working in HR management, arguing her work addressed a professional shortage in the field.
Field: human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director determined Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's job as a human resources manager would impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her employer(s)”
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,589coded 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
The Director had already conceded threshold EB-2 eligibility and substantial merit; the entire dismissal turned solely on national importance under prong 1, with the AAO expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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