dismissedAPR062026_02B52032026-04-06 · appeal · SCOPS 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 senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance motor architecture design, hybrid vehicle powertrain optimization, and aerospace power system monitoring by joining a leading U.S. technology company and conducting research to enhance consumer electronics, clean transportation, and aviation safety.

Field: electromechanical systems / engineering program management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (master's in materials engineering); not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance.”

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”

“these assertions are not supported by concrete examples or detailed explanations demonstrating the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's national importance.”

“alignment with general national goals, in and of itself, does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters are supportive in tone and positive factors, they do not offer sufficient explanation of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities detailing how her endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives”
AAO decision text
patents · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient corroborating evidence to show that employment with any of these companies would have a broad impact on the industry or rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

746coded 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 raised a Buletini argument asserting SCOPS imposed a heightened evidentiary standard and failed to evaluate the entire record; the AAO expressly addressed and rejected this argument, clarifying that examining evidence quality does not constitute an abuse of discretion. SCOPS had actually found prongs 1 (national importance only) and 3 not met but credited substantial merit (prong 1 partial) and prong 2; the AAO affirmed only on prong 1 national importance and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3. The AAO drew an explicit comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research and government-interest letters to illustrate the evidentiary gap.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Lack of corroborating evidence (e.g., government or expert letters like in Dhanasar) showing the specific endeavor's broader implications beyond employer-specific benefits, defeating prong 1.

Transferable lesson

Supplement expert letters with concrete, endeavor-specific evidence of broader field/economic impact, not just credentials or general field importance.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer