NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR222024_02B52032024-03-22 · 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 variously described her proposed endeavor as working as a general operations manager, as a financial analyst improving corporate financial health, and as an entrepreneur opening a chain of healthy fast-food restaurants to combat obesity.

Field: general and operations management / financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

However, it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.
But without a stable and consistent description of her proposed endeavor, we cannot analyze it under the Dhanasar framework
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to dueling proposed endeavors.

AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
1,581coded 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 petition failed at the threshold of prong 1 because the Petitioner's description of her proposed endeavor kept shifting across the petition, RFE response, and appeal (general operations manager, financial analyst, fast-food restaurant entrepreneur), which the AAO held made it impossible to conduct any Dhanasar analysis at all; the AAO explicitly declined 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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles