dismissedAUG212017_01B52032017-08-21 · appeal · Nebraska 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.
The Petitioner, a metallurgical engineer, proposed to continue working for a steel wire manufacturer performing metallurgic/mechanical laboratory analyses, designing a new galvanizing plant, and supporting quality and production initiatives; counsel also asserted broader capacity to consult in oil/gas and aerospace/defense fields.
Field: metallurgical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed work for has implications beyond her company and its customers at a level sufficient to establish the national importance of her endeavor.”
“counsel's remarks are inconsistent with other statements and evidence in the record, including the initial appeal brief and a personal statement from the Petitioner”
“the record does not corroborate the assertion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to "substantially benefit prospectively the national interest of the United States in defense matters and oil and gas extraction."”
“the record does not show that the specific work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that advance the steel and wire industry, or otherwise has broader implications in the field of metallurgical engineering.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The evidence discussed above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor of supporting production and manufacturing projects.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not show that the specific work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that advance the steel and wire industry”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · credited
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
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 found prong 2 satisfied but prong 1 failed and dispositive; includes detailed footnote discussion (fn. 8-9) analyzing hypothetically what would be needed if prong 1 had been met, showing cross-prong reasoning about her graduate research not constituting sufficient record of success for a research-focused endeavor she was not actually pursuing.
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)
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