dismissedJAN282026_04B52032026-01-28 · 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, a quality control manager with over seven years of experience, proposed to continue overseeing construction projects—including on military bases—ensuring compliance with technical, safety, and operational standards for a company contracting with the U.S. government.

Field: quality control management / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS determined the Beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; AAO did not disturb this finding.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently establish how the Beneficiary's work as an individual quality control manager for a single company would rise to the level of national importance.”

“working in or adjacent to an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary's work would sufficiently extend beyond his immediate sphere of influence to produce the regional or nationally important impacts claimed.”

“the statements are largely conclusory and focus on the importance of quality control managers generally, the importance of the military, and the importance of the projects themselves.”

“aside from these broad generalizations, [the professor] does not offer specific evidence regarding any U.S. economic impact, job creation, or other substantial benefits directly attributable to the Beneficiary's future work.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the statements are largely conclusory and focus on the importance of quality control managers generally, the importance of the military, and the importance of the projects themselves”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“working in or adjacent to an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

746coded 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

The Petitioner argued SCOPS used boilerplate language mischaracterizing the petition as a 'self-petition'; the AAO acknowledged the error but deemed it harmless, citing Matter of O-R-E-. The AAO also explicitly noted that evidence of the Beneficiary's skills and record of success was a prong 2 consideration, not prong 1, and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad. The service center is identified as SCOPS (Service Center Operations) rather than a named geographic service center.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer