dismissedJAN242023_02B52032023-01-24 · 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 statistician, proposed to continue working as a market research analyst in the United States, using statistical analysis and business intelligence to support corporate decision-making and business growth for U.S. companies.

Field: statistics / market research analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future U.S. employer or clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

other · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
other · credited
other · discounted
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
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

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 the Petitioner's post-RFE pivot to a 'R&D in Data Science and Storage' endeavor as an impermissible material change from the market-research-analyst endeavor described at filing, citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi, and declined to consider it at all.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer