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 civil engineer, proposed to continue engineering-related research work, though the record and the Director's decision conflated this proposed endeavor with his current employment duties.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“it is imperative that the endeavor is accurately described to conduct a meaningful analysis of its claimed national importance”
“the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not satisfy the first prong was largely conclusory, did not adequately describe the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Director's ... quotes from [an] employment letter describing the Petitioner's current research ... instead of from the Petitioner's own statements describing his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
This is a remand based on the Director's decision being insufficient for meaningful appellate review (conclusory reasoning and conflation of the petitioner's current employment duties with the proposed endeavor), rather than a substantive AAO finding that any Dhanasar prong was unmet. The AAO expressly declines to reach prongs two and three and expresses no opinion on the ultimate outcome.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was conclusory, misidentified the proposed endeavor by quoting employer's description of current work rather than Petitioner's own endeavor statement, precluding meaningful review.
Ensure adjudicators (and petitioners) clearly distinguish the proposed endeavor from current job duties; demand reasoned, evidence-specific analysis rather than boilerplate denials.
vague
field_advancement
mixed
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