dismissedMAR282022_02B52032022-03-28 · 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, an IT specialist, proposed to continue working in the U.S. as an IT specialist/project leader or systems coordinator for U.S. companies, including those supporting the LATAM market.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not provided documentary evidence that proposed job duties in project leadership or systems coordination would impact the Petitioner's IT specialist field more broadly rather than benefiting his employer or their clients.”
“they do not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“Without information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this evidence is not relevant to the consideration of whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · 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
“they do not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- 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 decision includes a footnote clarifying that NYSDOT was vacated by Dhanasar, and another noting that exceptional ability alone (per 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)) does not exempt a petitioner from the job offer/labor certification requirement. The AAO also disregarded post-filing employment evidence under the Katigbak rule that eligibility must be established as of filing.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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