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 mechanical engineer, proposed to work as a construction manager on oil and gas industry projects (refining plants, LNG facilities, power generation), contributing his technical expertise to engineering, procurement, and construction projects.
Field: mechanical engineering / oil and gas construction management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's erroneous conclusion that a bachelor's degree alone qualifies as an advanced degree, but reserved opinion on whether Petitioner actually satisfies EB-2 classification since the petition failed on prong 1 regardless.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the [P]etitioner has not shown [his] proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly”
“the record indicates that the proposed endeavor will benefit his employer and its clients”
“Neither the 2020 one-page information sheet from the U.S. Department of Energy, nor the 2021 Pricewaterhouse Coopers report, nor Ed Crooks' 2022 opinion blog post about an LNG boom discuss the Petitioner”
“the Petitioner does not explain how the project for his employer...has broader implications...beyond benefitting his employer and its client”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“again addressing how the proposed endeavor will benefit the Petitioner's employer but not establishing that it will have broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Neither the 2020 one-page information sheet from the U.S. Department of Energy, nor the 2021 Pricewaterhouse Coopers report, nor Ed Crooks' 2022 opinion blog post...discuss the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“a bachelor's degree alone cannot qualify an individual as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how the project for his employer...has broader implications...beyond benefitting his employer and its client”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO affirmatively withdrew two of the Director's erroneous legal conclusions (that a bachelor's degree alone satisfies advanced-degree EB-2 classification, and that the endeavor lacked substantial merit), finding in the Petitioner's favor on those sub-issues, but still dismissed the appeal solely on national importance, reserving judgment on threshold EB-2 eligibility and prongs 2-3.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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