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 computer scientist, proposed an endeavor whose description he materially changed over the course of proceedings; the record did not adequately describe the specific endeavor or its broader implications.
Field: computer science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he had not adequately described the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and that the record did not show the proposed endeavor would have the type of broader implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong”
“USCIS discussed the Petitioner's material change to his proposed endeavor description, determining that the record did not establish the endeavor would have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“he does not support his statement with documentary evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Third combined motion to reopen/reconsider after appeal and two prior combined motions all dismissed; AAO rejects petitioner's reliance on an unrelated BIA removal case (Matter of Perez Vargas), a non-precedent AAO remand decision, and a misreading of USCIS Policy Manual STEM guidance, clarifying that STEM field alone does not establish national importance without endeavor-specific broader implications.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The third combined motion added a statement without documentary evidence (reopen) and misread Perez Vargas and Dhanasar's prong-2 language (reconsider); it showed no misapplied law, so both were dismissed.
A motion to reopen needs new documentary evidence, not just a statement; an inapposite precedent or prong-2 language shows no legal error, and STEM alone is not national importance.
vague
mixed
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