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.
A mechanical engineer working in the oil and gas industry proposed to continue engineering and complex business systems development work for his employer, applying integrated engineering solutions and mathematical optimization to large-scale projects.
Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as both an advanced degree professional and an individual of exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not demonstrated that an impact on this single company and its projects necessarily equates to a broader impact on the oil and gas industry.”
“the evidence does not demonstrate any benefit to the regional or national economy outside of his company.”
“Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increases in employment or income attributable to his endeavor stand to substantially affect economic activity.”
“the issue here is not the value of the mechanical engineering field or oil and gas industry, but rather whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor ... rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he has not demonstrated that an impact on this single company and its projects necessarily equates to a broader impact on the oil and gas industry.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the evidence does not demonstrate any benefit to the regional or national economy outside of his company.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the endeavor lacked substantial merit, but found it lacked national importance, making prong 1 dispositive on an alternate basis than the Director used. The AAO explicitly declined to independently review prongs 2 and 3, instead adopting and affirming the Director's earlier findings on those issues under Matter of P. Singh's adoption doctrine.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- 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