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 civil engineer, proposes to create innovative hydrologic and hydraulic models of flood patterns in watersheds to assess flooding risks and propose science-based mitigation strategies, with the goal of strengthening U.S. disaster resilience and informing flood-resilient infrastructure development.
Field: civil engineering, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO agreed that the Petitioner holds a U.S. master's degree in engineering (2022), satisfying the advanced degree requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has implications beyond prospective clients or offers broad implications to his field that rise to the level of national importance.”
“It is not apparent that any internal achievements while employed with [employer] would be made publicly available rather than maintained as proprietary information.”
“the record does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work is novel or an improvement upon processes already in use.”
“the conference information and the email confirming proposal selection state that the selected speaker is the Petitioner's co-author, an employee of [employer].”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“The Petitioner's publication and citation record also do not demonstrate that '16 different academics in [his] field have utilized [his] work as the foundation for their published articles.'”
“Beyond the Google Scholar profile, the record does not include any further information about the citations, including the basis or context of the citations.”
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the significance of the Petitioner's role in the projects or distinguish the Petitioner's contributions from his employer's.”
“the description of the Petitioner's role is consistent with the normal duties of a civil engineer assigned to a project.”
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his published and presented work served as an impetus for progress in the field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the industry.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the significance of the Petitioner's role in the projects or distinguish the Petitioner's contributions from his employer's.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not include any further information about the citations, including the basis or context of the citations.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The email does not state the topic of the Petitioner's presentation or explain how it is related to his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
All 7 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has approximately three years of experience with H&H modeling”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles and reports in the record do not mention the Petitioner and his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- 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
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO found both P1 and P2 failed but treated neither as singularly dispositive — both failures together determined the outcome. The AAO specifically noted that conference presentation evidence cut against the Petitioner because the invitation was addressed to a co-author/colleague rather than the Petitioner himself, suggesting the work is owned and controlled by the employer. The AAO also cited USGS and FEMA websites as evidence that H&H modeling is already widely used in the United States, undermining novelty claims. SCOPS had already conceded substantial merit under P1, so only national importance was contested at that sub-element.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The endeavor's impact was tied to and owned by his employer, not shown to improve upon existing USGS/FEMA H&H models or extend field-wide; thin, employer-bound evidence failed prongs one and two.
Show how your endeavor improves upon existing tools and extends beyond your employer's proprietary work; conference invites addressed to colleagues and student-era citations will not establish national importance.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
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