dismissedMAR212023_02B52032023-03-21 · 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 sought to continue working as a general and operations management professional, advising U.S. companies on planning, directing, and coordinating operations, working for any individual or company in need of his services.
Field: general and operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as advanced degree professional; not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the items listed appear to be proposed job duties as a general and operations manager, rather than an explanation of the proposed endeavor's broader implications”
“the record does not evidence a sufficiently direct connection between the proposed endeavor activities and either job creation, tax revenue, or increased household spending”
“The authors do not demonstrate knowledge of the proposed endeavor or explain how it has national importance”
“the record does not contain sufficient details and objective evidence to corroborate such assertions”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
“this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these materials do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a more relevant consideration in analyzing his eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
AAO explicitly notes it reviewed all evidence though not discussing each piece individually, citing Guaman-Loja standard for reasoned consideration; footnote clarifies that letters praising personal qualifications belong to prong 2 analysis, not prong 1.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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