dismissedMAY292024_02B52032024-05-29 · 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, describing himself as a 'business developer,' proposed to continue operating two U.S. companies: one supplying optical transmission products to the IT/telecom market, and another assisting foreign entrepreneurs in launching U.S. technology startups, while also advising U.S. companies on business operations.

Field: business development / telecommunications infrastructure · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew Director's findings that Petitioner met the ten-years-experience and license/certification criteria for exceptional ability, finding letters showed technical (not entrepreneurial) work and insufficient qualifying years, and that the professional registration card did not specify an occupation or reflect a merit-based standard. A final merits review also found only a normal career trajectory and unreliable salary comparison evidence, not a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Director noted that the Petitioner's claims that his companies in the United States would promote job creation and economic growth were not supported by documentary evidence in the record”

“our analysis of national importance concerns the specific endeavor proposed by the Petitioner, and the evidence he refers to does mention his endeavor”

“he has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that he therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“illustrate a normal career trajectory, from technician to supervisor to executive... and do not demonstrate that he possesses a much higher level of expertise than that of his peers”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the letters from G-F-I- and T-B- S.A. indicate that he worked in technical positions, performing duties that are not those of an entrepreneur”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“this evidence does not establish that the Petitioner possesses a license or certification for the occupation in which he proposes to engage”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“knowledge which can be applied in a number of occupations”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the survey does not provide a reliable or probative view of the salaries in the Petitioner's field”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

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 rejected a vague constitutional due-process/international-treaty argument as unsupported and factually incorrect, citing Giday v. INS. The decision rests on two independently dispositive bases (failure of the exceptional-ability threshold and failure of Dhanasar prong 1), with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved as unnecessary under INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer