dismissedMAY172024_04B52032024-05-17 · 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 area manager providing business management and advisory services to small and medium-sized enterprises across various industries, particularly in the hotel/hospitality sector.

Field: business management / hospitality industry (area manager) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The authors nonetheless do not articulate how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national or global implications beyond the clients and companies he elects to work with.”

“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”

“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions.”

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

“Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not articulate how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national or global implications beyond the clients and companies he elects to work with”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the record does not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
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

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 emphasized that industry reports about the general importance of area managers/hospitality sector do not establish national importance of the petitioner's specific individualized endeavor, reiterating the field-vs-endeavor distinction from Dhanasar itself.

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
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer