dismissedNOV142025_02B52032025-11-14 · 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 human resources specialist, proposed to implement HR methodologies (IIPMS, Lean Office, and Value Stream Mapping) to improve HR processes, training, and productivity, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish its national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
“it is not evident how her provision of services to one employer or company would have potential prospective national level impact on this massive industry”
“there is little indication as to how the Petitioner's proposed services would extend beyond her immediate clients or her employer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success is a consideration under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it is not evident how her provision of services to one employer or company would have potential prospective national level impact on this massive industry”
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
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 expressly declined to reach prongs two and three, reserving them under Bagamasbad since prong one was dispositive; decision repeatedly refers to the service center as 'SCOPS' rather than 'the Director.'
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
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