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.
A civil engineer with over 22 years of experience proposed to continue working with U.S. companies in the oil, gas, industrial, commercial, and naval sectors, including constructing and improving oil refineries and other large-scale structures.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the record supports, that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in civil engineering plus more than five years of progressive experience, satisfying the advanced-degree professional category.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · ignored
“the Director did not discuss other evidence in the record, including the expert opinion letter, the Petitioner's recommendation letters, and various industry reports”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
- other · discounted
“such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that your work stands to impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO remanded solely due to the Director's failure to fully analyze the record (ignoring the expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry reports, and failing to address prong 2 at all), rather than reaching any independent determination on the merits; the AAO explicitly stated it 'express[ed] no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand.'
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
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO remanded not on merits but because the Director failed to review/discuss key record evidence (expert letter, recommendations, industry reports) and inadequately explained the denial across all three Dhanasar prongs.
Adjudicators must engage with the full record; petitioners should ensure all submitted evidence is substantively addressed, and appeal procedural gaps in the denial's reasoning.
vague
stem_positive_factor · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area · 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