dismissedOCT022023_05B52032023-10-02 · appeal · 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, a supply chain and logistics specialist with prior management experience in the oil industry in Caracas, initially proposed to work in leading supply chain positions for U.S. companies in the Critical Oil Industry Supply Chain, later attempting to reframe this as founding her own consulting company.

Field: supply chain management and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of working as a supply chain management and logistics provider for an unidentified employer rises to the level of national importance.”

“the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“offers little or no analysis of the specific proposed endeavor and its prospective substantial economic impact”
AAO decision text
business plan · ignored
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating her own business”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Director concluded that the submitted government report and articles establish the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit”
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
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 refused to consider the Petitioner's revised proposed endeavor (forming her own consulting company) submitted in RFE response, treating it as a materially changed endeavor arising after filing and citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Bardouille for the rule that eligibility must be shown as of filing; it also expressly designated the p1 failure as an independent and alternate basis, reserving p2 and p3 under Bagamasbad/L-A-C-.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Matter of Bardouille
Matter of Izummi
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer