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 proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping industry, including data-driven efficiency enhancements, fuel cost and emissions reduction, cargo logistics optimization, and structured training programs for maritime professionals.
Field: supply and trade / maritime logistics and vessel operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; threshold was not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's description of his proposed endeavor was too vague to establish his eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong.”
“beyond these generalized descriptions, the Petitioner has not specifically discussed what these activities would actually entail within these broad objectives”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he has not shown through the documentary evidence how these activities would sufficiently extend beyond the individuals he trains to affect the field, region, or nation more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“beyond these generalized descriptions, the Petitioner has not specifically discussed what these activities would actually entail within these broad objectives”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“while the Petitioner emphasizes his skills, expertise, and past achievements again on appeal, these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed the SCOPS decision wholesale under Matter of Burbano without independent elaboration on prongs 2 and 3, declining to reach them under INS v. Bagamasbad. The decision explicitly redirected the petitioner's skills-and-achievements arguments to prong 2, and rejected the federal-priorities alignment argument as conflating field importance with the specific proposed endeavor.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Proposed endeavor was too vague and generalized, lacking specific activities or evidence showing broader economic, societal, or national-level impact beyond the petitioner's employer.
Define the endeavor with concrete mechanisms and quantify its broader impact; do not substitute personal credentials or field importance for endeavor-specific national significance.
vague
economic_job_creation · field_advancement · government_interest
person_focused
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, 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
- The Petitioner proposed to advance the integration of AI and other exponential technologies—including machine learning,