dismissedMAR262024_02B52032024-03-26 · appeal · Nebraska 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 director of tourism for a foreign government's ministry office, sought to continue working in the cruise industry and tourism sector in the U.S., eventually transitioning to a permanent tourism-related position and influencing policy design with multilateral organizations.
Field: tourism / cruise industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“These terms, however, do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“This general statement potentially encompasses a wide range of possible occupations, none of which the Petitioner specifically identified.”
“The overall importance of tourism and travel does not establish the national importance of one specific endeavor within the industry.”
“the submitted background materials "speak in broad terms and do not reflect the national importance the petitioner's specific endeavor would have."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the official stated that the Petitioner should have "the opportunity to contribute to the US tourism sector."”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's past employment, however, does not suffice to create an inference as to her intended future employment”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The overall importance of tourism and travel does not establish the national importance of one specific endeavor within the industry.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
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
AAO cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to note a circuit split/consensus that NIW grant/denial is a discretionary decision, joining the 9th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits. The decision reserved the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability determination entirely, resolving the case solely on prong 1 vagueness grounds.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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