dismissedDEC102019_02B52032019-12-10 · 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 Beneficiary proposed to continue working as a process engineer for a semiconductor manufacturer, designing and improving dry etch process technology and equipment configurations for the company's microchip manufacturing.

Field: electrical engineering / semiconductor process engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the past success of his employer”

“it has not demonstrated that the economic implications of these operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary's process engineering projects”

“the Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects it is claiming as a U.S. company are implications of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor”

“the record does not show that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer to impact the semiconductor manufacturing industry more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“notes that this work involves keeping up the factory etch equipment's 100% utilization for maximum cost benefit”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's innovations in semiconductor manufacturing”
AAO decision text
media · discounted

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
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

The AAO explicitly distinguishes the importance of the employer's industry/company scale from the importance of the individual's specific job duties, rejecting the 'large employer, large economic impact' argument as insufficient without a shown nexus to the beneficiary's own work.

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.

Poursina v. USCIS
Section 291 of the Act

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner conflated employer's national/economic significance with the beneficiary's specific process-engineering endeavor, failing to show his particular work had broader industry or economic impact.

Transferable lesson

Tie national importance evidence directly to the beneficiary's own specific contributions and their measurable prospective impact, not merely the employer's size or industry significance.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · us_competitiveness · critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer