dismissedSEP092024_01B52032024-09-09 · 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 proposed to work as an account specialist and insurance agent, later planning to obtain an e-file license, lead accounting-related workshops and seminars, and disseminate accounting knowledge via social media.
Field: accounting/insurance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated it rises to the level of national importance.”
“the services and training the Petitioner plans to provide benefit her employer, clients, and social media viewers.”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“this statement is related to the importance of the general field of accounting and not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor to work as an account specialist.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her endeavor sufficient extends beyond her employer, clients, and any social media viewers to impact the field or U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not specify and establish how exactly the Petitioner's individual work will result in broader implications for her field.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“letters indicate that [the Petitioner] performed well on the job, benefited her employers, and their customers”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
1,581coded 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 accepted the Petitioner's reframed endeavor (rejecting the Director's finding of a material change) but still found no national importance, dismissing on prong 1 alone and declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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