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, describing herself variously as a project manager, lawyer, and economist, proposed to work in areas such as international trade policy, corporate law, and women's economic empowerment, including possible research and volunteer work.
Field: trade policy/corporate law/economics · 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 substantiate the Petitioner's specific endeavor(s)”
“simply stating she will make contributions to our nation within these general areas of interest is insufficient to establish what her proposed endeavor will entail”
“such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“The record does not currently establish the prospective capacity, if any, in which the Petitioner will be predominantly engaged in conducting legal research on an ongoing basis.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“she quoted these job duties verbatim from the general job description for 'project management specialists' on O*NET”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she did not sufficiently describe her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner does not offer detailed information explaining how she will prospectively pursue her research projects”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner's pursuit of employment as a financial analyst after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on substantial merit, finding the proposed endeavor too vague across multiple shifting occupational descriptions (project manager, lawyer, economist, financial analyst); also faulted a post-filing job offer as an improper material change under Izummi/Katigbak.
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 Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp