dismissedFEB182025_01B52032025-02-18 · 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 Beneficiary, an electric vehicle systems engineer, proposed to continue working for the Petitioner's company designing and developing electric vehicle components and system architecture.
Field: electrical/electric vehicle engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with Director that Beneficiary qualifies as advanced degree professional based on a master's degree in electrical and computer engineering.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“While these letters speak to the Beneficiary's position, the projects he has been assigned, and his experience and expertise, they do not discuss in detail the specific impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner mistakenly relies on their own prospective impact rather than the impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”
“The evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single employee would affect the industry more broadly.”
“Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact in the industry, the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“it does not discuss the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this does not establish the national importance of his work as it does not speak to the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
746coded 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 →
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
- 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