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, an engineer with a foreign bachelor's-equivalent degree, sought to work in Design for Manufacturing (DFM), providing expertise to DFM firms to reduce pre-production cycle times and purportedly benefit the U.S. economy.
Field: electrical/mechanical engineering (Design for Manufacturing) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, concluding the employment letters were insufficient (one lacked authority/credibility indicators and dates; others did not aggregate to five years of progressive experience). The Petitioner did not assert or support exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record contained a vague and insufficient description of the proposed endeavor”
“the evidence provided does not substantiate how the Petitioner's past performance extended beyond his employers to impact the engineering field more broadly”
“he provided little detail on the size and number of companies for which he will work or the size and number of projects he plans to undertake, nor has estimated the number of jobs or revenue his employment would create”
“the Petitioner's reliance on such evidence to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor is misplaced”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“we conclude that the evidence provided is insufficient to support this claim”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not contain a date, letterhead, or any information as to professional relationship to the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“while we acknowledge the merit and importance of the Petitioner's industry, this does not necessarily establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Unusually, the AAO fully addressed both the threshold EB-2 classification issue (finding the Director erred in granting it, withdrawing that finding sua sponte) and then proceeded to analyze prong 1 in detail 'nevertheless' even though the threshold failure alone rendered the NIW issue moot, stating it provided 'additional analysis' because the Petitioner contested the Director's Dhanasar finding.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(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