dismissedDEC032025_02B52032025-12-03 · appeal
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, an industrial engineer, proposed to work as a project engineer implementing efficient building design and transformative project management to reduce construction defects, waste, and energy usage.
Field: industrial engineering / construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is unclear how his specific endeavor would broadly impact the nation or even an industry, such as construction or industrial engineering”
“the Petitioner appears to have broadly considered the cumulative impact of industrial project engineers in the construction industry rather than focusing on his specific endeavor”
“he has not provided evidence that he will work on such a scale as to significantly impact the $15.8 billion in construction inefficiencies industry-wide”
“there is no evidence that the Petitioner's individual work has the potential to broadly achieve the intended results on a national scale or across an entire industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- citations publications · discounted
“there is no mention in that publication of the Petitioner or his specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“such evidence does not support the Petitioner's claims about his plans to involve policy and regulatory framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“it is unclear how his specific endeavor would broadly impact the nation or even an industry”
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
2,589coded 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
SCOPS/AAO decided the appeal solely on prong 1 (national importance); no prong 2 analysis appears in the decision at all, and the AAO expressly declined to reach the Petitioner's third-prong arguments as unnecessary given the dispositive first-prong failure.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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