dismissedJUL112023_06B52032023-07-11 · appeal · Nebraska 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 software quality assurance engineer with an IT background, proposed to continue working in software quality assurance with a focus on the healthcare industry, either as a consultant or as an employee.
Field: software quality assurance / IT · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the brief does not address the deficiencies that Director found as to the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“The business plan does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor would result in "saving millions" or "contributing to improved national security."”
“The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor merely because it relates to a STEM field.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not clearly articulate the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and does not provide information related to funding, financial projections, or potential job creation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“provides substantively the same discussion of the Petitioner's background and description of the general field found elsewhere in the record”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“did not submit evidence of at least five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience in the specialty prior to filing the petition”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
1,312coded 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 expressly declined to reach the underlying EB-2 classification question (advanced degree vs exceptional ability) and prongs 2-3, resting dismissal entirely on prong 1's national importance element; Director's decision itself was noted as unclear on threshold eligibility.
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 L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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