dismissedDEC182024_03B52032024-12-18 · 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 Petitioner, a semiconductor equipment engineer, proposed to operate, maintain, and service semiconductor manufacturing facilities and equipment in the United States, including procuring facilities/equipment and handling production planning and capacity.
Field: semiconductor equipment engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's description of his proposed endeavor was vague.”
“we sill have little additional idea of what the Petitioner is actually proposing to do, or how he would carry out his proposed endeavor.”
“Simply showing that he is working in an important field is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“we sill have little additional idea of what the Petitioner is actually proposing to do, or how he would carry out his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Simply showing that he is working in an important field is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“reiterates the same language that was provided to the Director regarding his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
1,619coded 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
AAO declined to consider a new expert opinion letter submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano; the appeal was dismissed solely on prong 1 with prongs 2 and 3 expressly not reached.
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
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