The Petitioner, a telecommunications software consultant working abroad on OSS/BSS systems, proposed to continue working as a telecommunications software consultant in the United States, offering analytics, cybersecurity, and operations/business support systems services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner had not sufficiently identified his proposed endeavor or that the endeavor, as described, meets the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework”

“the first prong of Dhanasar considers the "specific endeavor which is the proposed work" and not the field overall”

“Simply stating that he intends to continue being an expert in his field does not explain how he intends to maintain that expertise”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong”

“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment and training relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “this evidence is of limited value as it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “he has already supplied a sufficient description of his endeavor through the submission of employment letters describing his job experience”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “this evidence is of limited value as it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “this evidence is of limited value as it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “eligibility for the benefit sought is not determined by the quantity of evidence alone but also by the quality”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

Notable

The AAO explicitly treats the failures of both prong 1 and prong 2 as independent and alternate bases for dismissal, stating the appeal is dismissed 'for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.' It also emphasizes that the Petitioner presented evidence spanning multiple distinct IT occupations (developer, engineer, manager, architect) without identifying a single specific endeavor, and rejects the notion that merely continuing prior overseas work satisfies Dhanasar without explaining why U.S.-based performance is necessary, noting many IT roles can be performed remotely.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution