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 Director of Operations and Finance at a swimming pool company, proposed to enhance the nation's aquatic sports facilities and promote public safety and youth development through sports.
Field: swimming pool construction/aquatics facilities industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent Master of Science degree in linguistic sciences.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“SCOPS determined the Petitioner did not establish that her work would extend beyond her company and its clients to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“While the authors of these letters attest to the Petitioner's skills and past accomplishments, they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor or establish its potential prospective impact.”
“The record does not establish that this impact was attributable to the Petitioner's individual contributions to the installation of pools”
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or related issues in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor or establish its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“None of these articles discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record does not establish that this impact was attributable to the Petitioner's individual contributions”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
Petitioner's proposed endeavor description (aquatic sports facilities/public safety/youth development) was broader than her actual claimed contributions (pool installations for specific institutional clients), and the AAO focused on the mismatch between generic field-level evidence and the specific endeavor.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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