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 research and development engineer with a PhD in mechanical engineering, sought to continue work as an engineering consultant and software developer, building physics-based algorithms and simulation software for oil & gas drilling processes at his employer.
Field: mechanical engineering / software development (oil & gas drilling engineering) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director's finding that Petitioner did not qualify as advanced degree professional was withdrawn based on his PhD and transcript.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed work for has implications beyond his company and its clients at a level sufficient to establish the national importance of his endeavor.”
“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the work stands to affect these broader industries.”
“Nor does the record show, for instance, that the specific work the Petitioner proposes to undertake offers original innovations to advance these overall industries”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The evidence discussed above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor of supporting engineering consulting and software development projects.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the work stands to affect these broader industries”
AAO decision text - citations publications · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
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
- 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
Notable
AAO withdrew two of the Director's threshold findings (advanced degree qualification and missing ETA-750B forms) but still dismissed on prong 1 national importance; also included an alternative-holding footnote stating that even if prong 1 had been met, the petitioner would not have been well positioned to advance the broader (unproven) endeavor.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 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