dismissedAUG112021_04B52032021-08-11 · 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.
Petitioner, a designer at an architectural design firm working on healthcare facility projects, proposed to continue in the architecture field and grow into a senior designer role, contributing to construction techniques and economic growth.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employers and their clientele to impact his field or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S . economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's participation in architectural design projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“he has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“Notably, the Petitioner does not further explain or document how his work within the field of architecture in the United States will "establish business activities which will open doors and new business between the U.S. and Brazil, and the U.S. and Portugal."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 explicitly distinguishes the Petitioner's experience/education evidence as relevant to prong 2, not prong 1, and notes an unexplained/undocumented claim about opening international business doors between the U.S. and Brazil/Portugal.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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