dismissedMAR142024_03B52032024-03-14 · 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 supply chain specialist, sought to work generally in the supply chain/logistics industry in the United States, potentially with a Florida-based company, without specifying a detailed proposed endeavor.
Field: supply chain management / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not specifically describe his proposed endeavor in the United States or why it would be of national importance.”
“a shortage of workers in a petitioner's field does not demonstrate the prospective national impact of a proposed endeavor”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential employer and its clientele”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a shortage of workers in a petitioner's field does not demonstrate the prospective national impact of a proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not sufficiently discuss and document what his proposed endeavor would involve, nor its national impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
746coded 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 noted the Director gave conflicting national importance determinations between the RFE (finding prong one met) and the denial (finding it not met), but held this did not warrant remand since Petitioner had opportunity to supplement the record on appeal; AAO proceeded to analyze prong one de novo and still found it unmet.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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