dismissedMAY022024_03B52032024-05-02 · 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 proposed to work as an IT Project Manager in the United States, providing IT expertise and managing enterprise resource planning (ERP) and IT infrastructure projects for various companies.
Field: information technology / IT project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his particular IT project managerial services”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective employers or clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance part.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- 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 expressly declined to reach threshold EB-2 classification and prongs 2/3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance, and noted the dismissal rests on multiple independent alternate grounds within 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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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