dismissedJAN302024_02B52032024-01-30 · 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, who had worked in occupational health and safety roles in Turkey, sought to work in the United States as an Occupational Health and Safety Specialist applying her prior experience, with a vague long-term aspiration to move into consulting.

Field: occupational health and safety · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“These general traits address the substantial merit of the Petitioner's occupation, but they do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and establish its national importance.”

“Information about the overall importance of the field does not show the wider impact or broader implications of one person's work in that field.”

“The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to demonstrate the potential impact or broader implications of her proposed endeavor.”

“The term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“provided no details beyond general descriptions of what the occupation entails”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“did not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and explain its national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“these materials do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
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

The Petitioner argued on appeal that she was analogous to a 'business development professional' despite never proposing to work in that occupation; the AAO rejected this as irrelevant. The decision expressly reserved analysis of prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.

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
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to define a specific proposed endeavor beyond her general occupation, so national importance could not be evaluated; general field/background evidence was insufficient.

Transferable lesson

Define a concrete, specific endeavor (not just a job title) and support its broader, national-scale impact with evidence, not general field statistics or self-serving brief statements.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer