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 and quality engineer, proposed to continue working for his current U.S. employer providing high-level industrial and quality engineering services focused on manufacturing and production processes, particularly serving the automotive sector.
Field: industrial and quality engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO agreed the Petitioner failed to qualify as an advanced degree professional because his post-bachelor's experience evidence (a business plan and a credentials evaluation relying on a self-produced resume) did not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)'s requirements for experience letters, and any post-filing experience could not be counted. AAO reversed the Director on one exceptional-ability criterion (license/certification) but did not reach a final merits determination on exceptional ability because the NIW analysis was independently dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has abandoned this issue on appeal when, in his appeal brief, he effectively reproduced the identical text he presented to the Director in response to the RFE”
“we conclude the Petitioner's actions on appeal result in his abandonment, waiver, or forfeiture of his first prong claims in this and any subsequent motion based on this petition”
“The Director concluded the record established the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, but it did not show that it also has national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“we do not consider this credentials evaluation to be probative nor does it assist the Petitioner in satisfying his burden of proof”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“relied on the Petitioner's self-produced resume to evaluate his work experience and not the type of evidence mandated by the regulation”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner relies on a document from an organization that is not supported by probative and independent evidence in the record”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- motion resubmission · discounted
“he effectively reproduced the identical text he presented to the Director in response to the RFE”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- NEW appeal issue abandoned · p1
Notable
AAO reversed the Director on one exceptional-ability criterion (license/certification) but declined to remand for a final merits determination, reasoning remand would serve no purpose given the dispositive NIW failure. The dismissal rested significantly on a procedural theory that the Petitioner abandoned his prong-one national-importance argument by substantially reproducing his RFE response verbatim in the appeal brief without identifying any error in the Director's decision, drawing on BIA/Eleventh Circuit abandonment/waiver case law rarely seen in NIW decisions.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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