dismissedSEP212023_03B52032023-09-21 · 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 logistics coordinator, proposed to work in business logistics and supply chain management, claiming this would help U.S. firms cut costs, boost profits, and improve efficiency.
Field: logistics / supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link his specific endeavor to potential prospective impacts”
“the Petitioner did not identify the specific area where he intends to provide his services”
“he did not demonstrate that his endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits to a specific region or the U.S. economy more broadly”
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
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“these decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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
Petitioner cited two prior non-precedent AAO decisions sustaining EB-1 extraordinary-ability appeals; the AAO distinguished them as non-binding and involving a different classification (EB-1 vs. EB-2).
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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