dismissedNOV282023_05B52032023-11-28 · 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, a topography and technical-drawing specialist, proposed to continue providing surveying, technical drawing, and project-management services for construction and airport infrastructure projects, and to train other professionals in the field.
Field: topography / technical drawing / civil-aeronautical construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company or clientele to impact the field”
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his field.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they have not demonstrated how performing day-to-day technical drawing, topography, and project management services...rise to a level of national importance”
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
- 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
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 the underlying EB-2 classification question and the third Dhanasar prong, resolving the appeal entirely on prong 1 (national importance), including rejecting national-security/military-importance and occupational-shortage arguments as unsupported.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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