dismissedNOV062024_06B52032024-11-06 · 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 procurement coordinator, intends to work for U.S. companies as a procurement coordinator, consultant, or similar position, improving purchasing flow, supplier diversity, and resource allocation.

Field: procurement / supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the record supported, that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional with a U.S.-equivalent bachelor's degree and five years of progressive experience; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry on national or global level beyond his prospective employer and its future clients”

“he proposes to work as a procurement coordinator for unspecified U.S. companies, regardless of their respective industries”

“the above evidence and assertions focus on his experience, skills, and the importance of his profession”

“He also does not specify, and the record lacks specific evidence as to, how or to what extent his proposed work with U.S. companies otherwise stands to impact U.S. economy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“an expert letter generally opining about the claimed importance of the endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the above evidence and assertions focus on his experience, skills, and the importance of his profession”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the voluminous industry articles generally noting the industry's significance”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

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

2,589coded 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to underscore the discretionary nature of NIW decisions and notes it was not error for the Director to decline reaching prongs two and three once prong one proved dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific procurement work (vs. general industry importance) would have national or global implications beyond his future employer and its clients.

Transferable lesson

Tie the endeavor to concrete, measurable national-scale impact (job creation, economically depressed areas, industry-wide adoption) rather than reciting personal qualifications or the field's general importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer