dismissedNOV152024_02B52032024-11-15 · motion_reconsider · 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 application manager working in information technology, sought to continue his IT work in the U.S., citing his contributions to former employers and the importance of the IT field generally.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish his proposed endeavor would result in broader implications to the field at a level commensurate with national importance contemplated in Dhanasar”

“we concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor would result in substantial economic effects discussed in Dhanasar”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“We concluded that the letters in the record established the benefits the Petitioner provided to his former employers, as well as the prospective economic benefits of the industry as a whole, but did not establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor would lead to broader implications in the field or otherwise result in substantial economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“established the benefits the Petitioner provided to his former employers... but did not establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor would lead to broader implications in the field”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the evidence did not address the shortcomings identified in our appellate decision, nor did the evidence overcome the basis of our dismissal”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments previously made on appeal and on motion to reopen”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

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

This is a second-tier motion (motion to reconsider) following an already-dismissed appeal and motion to reopen. The Petitioner invoked USCIS's January 2022 STEM guidance and the Policy Manual's entrepreneur guidance, but the AAO found he failed to identify any specific legal or factual error in its prior decisions, merely repeating prior arguments, and cited Matter of O-S-G- for the rule that general allegations of error are insufficient on a motion to reconsider.

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. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of O-S-G-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer