dismissedMAY292025_02B52032025-05-29 · appeal
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, a program officer for preferred communities in international development, proposed to continue work in refugee resettlement, gender-based violence response, and business development promoting U.S.-Ukraine/Eastern European trade relations.
Field: international development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the authors do not offer sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and its national importance”
“The Petitioner did not show his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients, partners, employers, or companies”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors do not offer sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and its national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these experiences are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“we acknowledge a business plan is not required”
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
- 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 separates experience/qualifications evidence from prong 1, stating such evidence is generally material to prong 2 but immaterial to prong 1's endeavor-focused inquiry.
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 E-M-
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