dismissedNOV042022_03B52032022-11-04 · 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, an applications manager, proposed to continue working in IT, implementing and managing software systems and productivity platforms to boost efficiency and capital for his employer(s).
Field: information technology / applications management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional based on a U.S. master's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence was insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor would impact the IT field, or the United States as a whole, but rather appeared to impact his employer only”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“It is insufficient to claim increased revenue and services, improved economy, or significant job creation without providing evidence to support such claims”
“the Director explained that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proposed endeavor would remedy the shortage”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence that the Petitioner is highly qualified to provide the proposed endeavor services is insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of demonstrating the national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“It is insufficient to claim increased revenue and services, improved economy, or significant job creation without providing evidence to support such claims.”
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
AAO found Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as advanced degree professional but dismissed on Dhanasar prong 1 alone, explicitly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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