dismissedJAN092023_01B52032023-01-09 · appeal · Texas 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 mechatronics engineer, proposed to continue working with multi-national companies in the U.S., facilitating cross-border transactions and projects involving Brazil; in response to the RFE he added plans to open service and manufacturing companies.
Field: mechatronics engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the letters do not establish how his prior work "extend beyond the scope of his employer and associated end-clients"”
“the articles "do not establish that working as a [m]echatronics [e]ngineer for a multi-national company has national [importance]."”
“Because the Petitioner's business plan is dated after the 2019 petition filing date ... the business plan and the Petitioner's assertions regarding that company present a new set of facts that do not establish eligibility.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan and the Petitioner's assertions regarding that company present a new set of facts that do not establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not establish how his prior work extend beyond the scope of his employer and associated end-clients”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles do not establish that working as a mechatronics engineer for a multi-national company has national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“general information regarding an individual's prior work experience is appropriately discussed under an analysis of the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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 applied the 'material change' doctrine (Matter of Izummi/Michelin Tire) to reject a post-filing business plan and new business ventures raised in response to the RFE as impermissible new facts, distinct from a standard prong-1 merits analysis.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
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