dismissedNOV012024_05B52032024-11-01 · 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, a software developer, intended to work in the United States providing software development and IT solutions/services to private and public enterprises, with plans to offer expertise to a multinational IT company and eventually pursue a Ph.D.
Field: software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we agree with the Director that the record does not sufficiently explain the Petitioner's specific endeavor to demonstrate the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavored.”
“the Petitioner's claims on appeal primarily rely on the importance of the software developer occupation and related fields, rather than the prospective impact of his specific endeavor.”
“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“Dr. M-H- does not explain how these services provided to prospective employers and/or clients would broadly impact the field.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“included various employment statistics and general background information on the software development field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
Petitioner argued the Director erred procedurally by not issuing a second RFE before denial; AAO rejected this, noting the regulation permits denial without a second RFE and the appeal itself provided opportunity to supplement the record, which Petitioner did not do.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- 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