dismissedOCT242025_01B52032025-10-24 · combined

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 works as a process engineering project manager at a mail services and logistics company, and proposed that this work has national importance.

Field: process engineering / mail services logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance”

“without elaborating on the nature and number ofjobs created in any particular location”

“focus[ing] on the Petitioner's field and neglect[ing] to concentrate on the specific proposed endeavor to explain its national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“reiterates generalized information already in the record regarding mail services and logistics”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“they present a set of facts that did not exist at that time; therefore, they cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“is of little probative value, ... focus[ing] on the Petitioner's field and neglect[ing] to concentrate on the specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“it consists of generalized and unsubstantiated assertions”
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

2,589coded 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

This is the fifth motion in the case, following a dismissed appeal and four prior dismissed motions to reconsider. The AAO also rejected the petitioner's attempt to invoke Kazarian v. USCIS, noting that case addresses extraordinary-ability classification, not NIW national-importance analysis, and that the petitioner mischaracterized its holding.

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. 103.5
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer