dismissedJAN232024_02B52032024-01-23 · appeal · Texas 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 petitioner, a senior hardware engineer with a PhD in electrical engineering, proposed to design wireless sensors, high-speed receivers, and mixed-mode integrated circuits for next-generation (6G/Wi-Fi) communication systems, either as an employee of a specific company or through related research.
Field: electrical engineering / semiconductor and wireless communication technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO did not disturb the finding that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not adequately described his proposed endeavor”
“The imprecise nature of the Petitioner's proposed future research does not sufficiently demonstrate how it would impact wireless and networking technologies”
“it is not apparent that any internal research discoveries conducted during the course of his employment would be made publicly available rather than maintained as proprietary information”
“The evidence does not show that the Petitioner's activities performed during his employment with I I or other similar employer would have economic impacts beyond the clients and customers served by his employer”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“it does not establish that his level of expertise is at least significantly above that ordinarily encountered in that field”
“The record, however, contains no documentation or verification from this employer confirming the Petitioner's employment or describing the duties he performed in this role”
“we conclude that letters are not sufficiently detailed or persuasive for the Petitioner to meet his burden of proof”
“the Petitioner's relatively small number of published papers counters the positive consideration of his record due to the prestige of the journals”
“The Petitioner's inconsistent statements cast doubt on his ultimate proposed endeavor which undermines his eligibility for the benefit”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters are of little probative value as they do not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner's relatively small number of published papers counters the positive consideration of his record due to the prestige of the journals”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record contains no documentation or verification from this employer confirming the Petitioner's employment or describing the duties he performed”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“it does not establish that his level of expertise is at least significantly above that ordinarily encountered in that field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they are of little probative value in this matter as they do not discuss the impact of the Petitioner's 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
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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
AAO found both prong one (national importance) and prong two (well-positioned) failures jointly dispositive, expressly declining to reach prong three under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- deference-to-necessity doctrine. AAO also noted the Petitioner presented 'competing proposed endeavors' (employment vs. research), citing Matter of Ho on doubt cast by inconsistent statements.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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