dismissedMAY152023_02B52032023-05-15 · appeal · Nebraska 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 airport operations specialist with prior Brazilian airline experience, proposed to continue his career providing airport operations services for a U.S. employer, helping aviation companies and airports operate more efficiently and safely.

Field: airport operations / aviation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to qualify as an advanced-degree professional because he did not show five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience (documented less than three years), and failed to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability because he met only one of the six required regulatory criteria.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to continue advancing his career as an airport operations specialist is "too vague to establish national importance."”

“the proposed endeavor here may very well positively impact the businesses that engage the Petitioner for his services”

“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“neither the Petitioner nor the individuals who provided letters in support of the petition sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work ... would meaningfully impact this demand or alleviate any shortage of workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
resume experience · discounted
“Therefore, the Petitioner documented less than three years of post-baccalaureate employment experience.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence or explanation to demonstrate that this professional identification card constitutes a license to practice his profession”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the advisory opinion letters is lacking relevance because they discuss the importance of the Petitioner's industry and occupation”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's salary demonstrated or is indicative of exceptional ability in his field”
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
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

The AAO dismissed the appeal on two independent and alternate grounds: failure to establish the underlying EB-2 classification (neither advanced-degree professional nor exceptional ability) and failure to establish national importance under Dhanasar prong one, expressly stating each basis stands alone as sufficient for dismissal.

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. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer