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 mining technician with a background in mining/production engineering, proposed to provide mining engineering and project management services to U.S. mining companies to improve their operations' efficiency, profitability, and environmental impact.
Field: mining engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not submit a transcript or credentials evaluation establishing his foreign bachelor's degree and MBA course certificate as equivalent to U.S. degrees, and did not submit employer letters or other sufficient evidence to establish five years of progressive experience in lieu of an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus”
“would impact the mining industry more broadly rather than benefiting his employers and their clients”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have an impact on the mining industry”
“they do not provide examples of how his work has influenced the mining industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“did not submit a transcript or an evaluation of academic records to establish that his bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record lacks letters from his current or former employer(s) or other sufficient evidence.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide examples of how his work has influenced the mining industry”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not provided sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed endeavor...would impact the mining industry more broadly”
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
- 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
Notable
The AAO rejected the Petitioner's due-process argument that the Director applied an incorrect (stricter) standard of proof, reaffirming the preponderance standard itself. The decision rests on two independent alternate grounds: failure to establish the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) and failure to establish national importance under Dhanasar prong 1, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved as unnecessary to reach.
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-
- 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