The Petitioner sought to continue working as a recruitment consultant placing executive and leadership talent into energy companies across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and North America, aiming to support U.S. energy independence and economic growth.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this evidence is not relevant to the consideration of whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as it does not detail the "potential prospective impact" of his work.”

“the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence that support these conclusions.”

“these do by themselves, indicate the Petitioner's recruitment of executives and high-level leadership for not, targets or addresses a critical shortage to an extent it would involve national importance rather than benefitting his employer and its business clients.”

“the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence indicating his recruitment consulting activities would impact the industry or the Petitioner's recruitment consultant field more broadly rather than benefiting his employer or their clients.”

“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 as he has not submitted documentation to support his assertions.”

“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" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

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
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence that support these conclusions”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's denial of the underlying EB-2 advanced degree classification (finding it erroneous) but still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1 national importance grounds, explicitly declining 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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution