dismissedMAY142024_08B52032024-05-14 · 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 a project manager specializing in ERP and IT management, implementing ERP/IT projects for U.S. companies using PMI, Scrum, Kanban, ITIL and related methodologies to help them grow and expand internationally.
Field: IT / ERP project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not explain and provide adequate support to demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would help American companies grow, impact business processes, or develop new revenue at a national level”
“he has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer(s)”
“he does not clarify how many and has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor would result in substantial economic benefits through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”
“the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor and how it would extend beyond his employer”
“the Petitioner relies, in large part, on his more than 35 years of experience in the fields of IT and business to show the global significance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor and how it would extend beyond his employer”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he does not sufficiently indicate or document how his proposed project manager position would have "significant economic benefits" on the PPM market”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 explicitly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not address unnecessary issues.
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
- 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