dismissedAPR302020_01B52032020-04-30 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 semiconductor research engineer employed in South Korea sought to continue work in digital hardware engineering, semiconductor memory engineering, and patent engineering, hoping to obtain a research engineering position with a U.S. multinational corporation (e.g., Intel, Micron, SanDisk) or a research post at a U.S. university or national institute.
Field: semiconductor/digital hardware engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (MS in Electrical Engineering).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future U.S. employer and its operations to impact his field or the U.S. semiconductor industry more broadly”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“Without sufficient documentation regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his specific work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the record does not include documentation of his communications with these companies or their interest in hiring him”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Without sufficient documentation regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his specific work”
AAO decision text
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,589coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO expressly states each independent basis (though only prong 1 was reached) would be an alternate ground for dismissal; declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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.
- Poursina v. USCIS
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