The Petitioner proposed to work as a business and logistics specialist for a large U.S. logistics company, applying his experience and language skills to develop and implement new logistics processes lowering costs and port charges.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the proposed endeavor of working "in a large logistics company" as a business and logistics specialist will benefit his employer(s), their business partners, and their clients and customers.”

“the implications of that appear to be confined to the international business that employs him, its business partners, and its clients and customers”

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor of the Petitioner working as one "Logistic Manager" for-presumably-one employer at a time will affect the alleged "national shortage of International Business Experts"”

“the record does not establish how his logistics work for his employer will create jobs, the number ofjobs his logistics work will create”

“the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor may have national importance”

“the Petitioner's references-throughout the record but specifically on appeal-to his "background and experience" are material to the second Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “an individual's background and experience are immaterial to determining whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “recommendation letters recognize and praise the Petitioner's ability in the field... has not established that the proposed endeavor has implications beyond a company”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “those documents are not specific to the self-petitioner...it is not apparent how these articles are relevant”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO notes an unusual economic counterargument: lowering employer costs/port charges may cause offsetting negative revenue effects for ports and other entities, potentially resulting in net job losses rather than job creation.

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 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