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 proposed to continue working as an industrial and refrigeration maintenance technician, helping businesses optimize operations, designing customized maintenance routines, and training/managing maintenance teams, including via his own company.
Field: industrial and refrigeration maintenance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not at issue on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his work would extend beyond individual companies to impact the maintenance industry more broadly.”
“the employment of one to three individuals does not demonstrate significant potential to employ United States workers.”
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of issues affecting an industry or our nation in general, but 'focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”
“A-A- does not explain, however, how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his individual clients to impact his field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the employment of one to three individuals does not demonstrate significant potential to employ United States workers”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner and they do not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not explain how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his individual clients to impact his field more broadly”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner states no new facts on motion, and submits no new supporting evidence.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO dismissed both a motion to reopen (no new facts/evidence submitted) and a motion to reconsider (Petitioner merely restated prior arguments without identifying legal error), affirming the prior appellate decision's dispositive prong-1 finding while continuing to reserve prongs 2 and 3 under the Bagamasbad doctrine of not reaching unnecessary issues.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
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