dismissedNOV212024_01B52032024-11-21 · appeal · Nebraska 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 proposed to work in the United States as a Tourism and Hospitality Management Specialist, sharing industry knowledge on technology, safety, training, sales, and partnerships with international hotel chains or established hospitality organizations.
Field: tourism and hospitality management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance”
“the generalized "articles and reports" in the record do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake may have broader implications”
“the substance of both opinion letters' bodies do not support the conclusory statements serving as section headers”
“the record does not specify any number of workers the Petitioner believes the specific endeavor she propose to undertake will cause her employer(s)-or any other entity-to hire”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion letters do not support their conclusory statements with supporting information material to the issue of whether the specific endeavor... may have the type of broader implications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“an individual's prior academic and employment experience are immaterial to the issue of whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor... may have national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the generalized information does not explain how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 flagged an internal inconsistency between the Petitioner's RFE-stage personal statement claiming a current 'consultancy role' and her resume showing employment ending before that date, citing Matter of Ho to undermine overall credibility, though this issue was not the basis for dismissal.
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
- Matter of Ho
- 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