dismissedJAN132026_02B52032026-01-13 · appeal · SCOPS 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 Beneficiary proposes to advance System Level Test (SLT) methodologies within semiconductor manufacturing, innovating and optimizing SLT programs from New Product Introduction through High Volume Manufacturing stages for System on Chip architectures at a for-profit employer.

Field: semiconductor system level test / SOC product development engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both agreed the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a master's degree in computer engineering.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”

“the expert opinion letter largely focuses on the importance of the field and does not include any persuasive and corroborating information about the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner cannot establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor by relying on his employer's expansive customer base, large market share, or leadership position”

“the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond his employer, its business partners, and its clientele”

“the record lacks adequate evidentiary support for the Petitioner's claims that his proposed endeavor would have impacts on the U.S. economy, societal welfare, or other U.S. interests”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Although this evidence provides background information on the industry itself and government efforts to support the industry; without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

2,501coded 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

SCOPS had already conceded substantial merit of the endeavor; the sole dispositive issue on appeal was national importance under prong 1. The AAO drew an explicit analogy to the STEM teacher hypothetical in Dhanasar and noted the Beneficiary's for-profit employment context made the CET list inapplicable. The AAO also declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The petitioner leaned on the semiconductor field's importance and the employer's products; the expert letter conflated field with endeavor and showed no innovation attributable to the beneficiary, failing prong-1 national importance.

Transferable lesson

Working in a critical field (CHIPS Act, CET list) is not enough; show your specific endeavor extends beyond your employer, with an expert letter about your work, not the field.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · national_security · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer