dismissedAUG232024_07B52032024-08-23 · 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.
The Petitioner proposed to work as an industrial and refrigeration maintenance technician, designing and implementing customized maintenance routines for businesses, training maintenance teams, and replacing outdated equipment with energy-efficient alternatives.
Field: industrial and refrigeration maintenance / HVAC · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus over five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his work would extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly.”
“the employment of one to three individuals does not demonstrate significant potential to employ United States workers.”
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues affecting an industry or our nation in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“A-A- does not explain, however, how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his individual clients to impact his field more broadly”
“The letters do not, however, address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and are more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters do not, however, address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and are more relevant to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his work would extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner and they do not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit documentation of cost-saving projections or other evidence that his work would have a substantial positive economic effect beyond reducing costs for individual companies.”
AAO decision text
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
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 →
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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