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 software quality assurance analyst and tester sought to continue working in this field for a U.S. employer, including work on an emergency alert system and an android automation operating system.
Field: software quality assurance / IT · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner established a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering plus five years of progressive experience, satisfying the advanced-degree equivalent requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not describe the proposed endeavor in sufficient detail when he filed the petition”
“this partnership is with his employer, and not with him or his specific proposed endeavor, of which this project is just a part of”
“a shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual nationally important under the Dhanasar decision”
“the letter and the record itself do not establish this without relevant, probative, and credible evidence to support these assertions”
“Although the Petitioner's work may be in the STEM field, the Petitioner must still establish his proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual nationally important under the Dhanasar decision”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO noted the petitioner's characterization of the emergency alert system as his 'proposed endeavor' on appeal constituted a material change from the initial filing under Matter of Izummi, but declined to hold this against him because he had not been given notice or an opportunity to brief the issue, and instead folded the project into consideration of the overall endeavor.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of V-K-
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