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 Associate Director of International Supply Chain, proposed to design and implement advanced supply chain methodologies to optimize logistics, reduce carbon emissions, improve supply chain resilience, and strengthen U.S. economic and national security.
Field: supply chain management / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
“The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of his occupation in general or value of effective supply chain management practices”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and collaborative projects to impact his field”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not identify the specific consortiums, conferences, and journals where the Petitioner has shared his work”
AAO decision text
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
- 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
Notable
AAO acknowledged SCOPS' decision contained 'problematic language' by seemingly requiring the Petitioner to show 'significant contributions to the field or industry,' a standard AAO agrees is not required under Dhanasar's first prong, but held this error was not significant enough to undermine the denial's other grounds.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
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