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 corrosion science engineer with a PhD in mechanical engineering, sought to continue developing corrosion mitigation systems, cathodic protection systems, and related research and field work protecting U.S. bridges and infrastructure from corrosion damage.
Field: corrosion science / mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director evaluated the petitioner only under the exceptional-ability standard and did not address advanced-degree-professional eligibility; the AAO found the petitioner's PhD sufficient to qualify as an advanced degree professional and declined to reach exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · credited
- resume experience · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This decision applies the pre-Dhanasar NYSDOT three-part test rather than the Dhanasar framework. Per the mapping instructions, the AAO's separate 'intrinsic merit' and 'national in scope' sections both correspond to Dhanasar's prong 1, leaving no distinct analysis mapped to prong 2 (well positioned), while the 'serving the national interest to a greater degree than a U.S. worker' section maps to prong 3. The Director had erroneously assessed the petitioner only under the exceptional-ability classification rather than as an advanced degree professional, and had applied an incorrect 'major significance' standard to the third NYSDOT prong instead of the correct 'degree of influence on the field' standard; the AAO corrected both errors and sustained the appeal, finding all three NYSDOT prongs satisfied.
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)
- Matter of Otiende
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO found petitioner's corrosion-mitigation work spanned multiple states and was incorporated into national infrastructure reports, satisfying national scope, and letters showed field-wide influence via citations and adopted methods, meeting NYSDOT prong 3's 'degree of influence' standard (not 'major significance').
Document geographic breadth of applied work plus independent expert letters showing adoption/influence of methods to satisfy NYSDOT's national-scope and influence prongs, especially where prior denial applied wrong legal standard.
specific
government_interest · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
mixed
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