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 software developer and inventor of color management technology, sought to continue working as chief technology officer developing new color management programs and technology for a company owned by his wife and its German parent company.
Field: color management software/technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business activity generated by the patented technology appears to primarily benefit the Petitioner's employer and its direct partners and clients”
“how his particular proposed endeavor would have national importance beyond his current employer and its clients”
“Generalized and conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
“the record does not provide sufficient details regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized and conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the evidence does not clarify how the Petitioner's design extended beyond his employer to affect the field as a whole”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“they do not substantiate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or methods will influence and impact the printing and color industry, other than just his employer and its customers”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- contract revenue · discounted
“we find the endeavor's prospective impact too attenuated to be considered a 'substantial positive economic effect'”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The petitioner's proposed employer was owned by his wife and its German parent company; the AAO treated reference letters and awards as evidencing benefit primarily to the employer's business network rather than the field at large, and explicitly declined to reach prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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