dismissedSEP202024_04B52032024-09-20 · 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 general and operations manager, proposed to act as a liaison between GovTech companies, accelerators, and governments to facilitate technology transfer, support start-up growth, and enhance education and research partnerships.
Field: general and operations management / GovTech liaison · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear.”
“the Petitioner has not clearly explained her endeavor beyond generally continuing her career in the United States.”
“she has not identified specific clients, partners, or employers with whom she would engage in this work.”
“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details about her intended projects, such as an operational plan, a timeline, or quantifiable business metrics.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her endeavor has broad implications”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not clarify how these documents establish their eligibility for the national interest waiver as claimed on appeal”
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
2,501coded 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 rejected Petitioner's argument that Director's decision used impermissible boilerplate language, finding it made specific factual findings. AAO also declined to reach the threshold EB-2 classification dispute (advanced degree vs. exceptional ability) since prong 1 failure was dispositive.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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