dismissedFEB182025_02B52032025-02-18 · 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, working for a semiconductor company, proposed to continue driving competitive analysis for power performance optimization of graphics and compute products using pre-silicon strategies, and to collaborate with architects and design teams on low power design in advanced semiconductor products.
Field: semiconductor engineering / electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the identical language suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' content”
“the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's publication history indicates that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not show how the Beneficiary's past experience relates to the proposed endeavor, let alone a track record of success”
“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the Beneficiary's record of success in advancing his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the identical language suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's publication history indicates that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner did not show how the Beneficiary's past experience relates to the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
271coded 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 found Petitioner satisfied prong 1 but failed prong 2 due to near-identical boilerplate language across three recommendation letters (citing Hamal v. DHS), and expressly declined to reach prong 3 citing INS v. Bagamasbad on unnecessary advisory findings.
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
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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