dismissedOCT102023_05B52032023-10-10 · 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 hotel and tourism general manager, proposed to continue working as a hospitality/general manager in the United States.

Field: tourism and hospitality management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner's foreign educational credentials, even combined with work experience, do not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree, so he does not qualify as an advanced-degree professional; as an individual of exceptional ability he met only one of six regulatory criteria (education) because his work-experience letters showed only 8 years 5 months rather than the required 10 years, he held no license/certification, and his salary evidence did not demonstrate exceptional ability.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of gaining employment as a general manager in the hospitality industry had not been show to have the potential to create jobs or have any other positive economic effects”

“The letter writer does not explain how the Petitioner's experience and skills will allow him to have an economic impact beyond the scope of his employer, or broadly affect the hospitality industry.”

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, and he thus does not meet the first prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“neither of these credentials are the foreign equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The total amount of work experience demonstrated by this evidence is 8 years and 5 months, less than the required 10 years.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that he holds a license or certification for his occupation as required by the plain language of the regulation”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter writer does not explain how the Petitioner's experience and skills will allow him to have an economic impact beyond the scope of his employer”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the evidence is insufficient to show that the Petitioner's salary demonstrates exceptional ability in his field”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

business plan · discounted
“the expert opinion letter referred to similar industry statistics as the Petitioner does on appeal”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

746coded 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 reserved (declined to reach) the question of whether the occupation of tourism/hospitality manager qualifies as a 'profession,' and also reserved the Petitioner's additional exceptional-ability criterion argument, since the threshold denial was dispositive. The AAO also corrected an internal contradiction in the Director's decision, treating a favorable statement on the ten-years-experience criterion as 'erroneous.' Despite finding the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification, the AAO nonetheless briefly addressed and rejected Dhanasar prong one on the merits.

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
8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer