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, an electrical engineer, proposed to implement AI, automation, robotics, and data collection technologies in steel/iron casting manufacturing processes at his U.S. employer's plant, aiming to improve efficiency, safety, and reduce equipment downtime.
Field: electrical engineering / smart manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to sufficiently substantiate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience abroad due to inconsistent, uncorroborated, and discrepant employment verification documents from the foreign employer.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner submitted no business plans extending beyond his employer”
“it is not clear how his implementation of data collection, robotics, and other technologies in one employer's steel casting operations would have a potential prospective national impact on all U.S. manufacturers”
“there is little evidence to support that the potential prospective impact of his endeavor would extend beyond his employer”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
“he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficiently credible supporting documentation to substantiate his claimed five years of progressive foreign employment”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendations letters provide insufficient detail to support their wide-ranging claims of national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner submitted no business plans extending beyond his employer”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found threshold EB-2 advanced degree eligibility not met due to inconsistent/discrepant employment verification documents from the foreign employer (differing job titles, dates, formats, and an untranslated Korean footer), independently dispositive alongside the national importance failure under prong 1. AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- 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