dismissedMAY022024_06B52032024-05-02 · 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, a software engineer with IT experience in Brazil, proposed to work for a U.S. business providing specialized services in software engineering, database management, systems analysis, architecture, integration, project management, and DevOps.

Field: software engineering / information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus more than five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond his employer's business and its clients to impact the information technology field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“his claims that his work with U.S. companies will benefit the United States with new jobs, reduced unemployment, revenue generation, and innovations have not been established through independent and objective evidence”

“he does not sufficiently detail such innovations or how his endeavor would be different from work typically performed by software engineers”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific undertaking of working as a systems engineer for a U.S. company stands to have an impact beyond his potential employer and its clients”

“the opinion focuses on the need for information technology professionals and how the Petitioner's experience makes him well positioned to fill the need”

“working in the information technology field as a software engineer for a U.S. company is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the content of this letter and the other letters relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“his claims...have not been established through independent and objective evidence”
AAO decision text
degree · credited
resume experience · credited
other · discounted
“the opinion focuses on the need for information technology professionals and how the Petitioner's experience makes him well positioned to fill the need”
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
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

2,501coded 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to affirm discretionary nature of NIW adjudication and notes agreement among circuits; opinion letter from an outside academic was discounted as focusing on field-wide need for IT workers rather than the specific endeavor's prospective impact.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer