dismissedDEC202024_03B52032024-12-20 · appeal · Nebraska 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, an industrial designer, proposed to provide specialized services in branding and marketing, strategic planning, commercial work, and trading and product management to U.S. companies and organizations.
Field: industrial design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We observe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is largely a job search.”
“An individual's job search does not have potential prospective impact on the national interest because it does not broadly implicate matters of national importance.”
“But the record does not sufficiently evidence how the Petitioner intends to perform these duties.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“she did not provide a business plan or any other plans or projections explaining the expected scope of her intended activities”
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently described her proposed endeavor beyond the sphere of individuals or entities seeking out her services.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she did not provide a business plan or any other plans or projections explaining the expected scope of her intended activities”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her prior experience does not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
1,312coded 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 withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (crediting business-field merit) but still found lack of national importance dispositive; analogized the endeavor to teaching, which Dhanasar found insufficient for national importance.
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
- 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