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 chemical engineer, proposed to continue providing technical expertise in process safety engineering and risk management for his employer, including assessing safety risks at a large industrial plant to reduce environmental and public health impacts.
Field: chemical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, finding the academic equivalency evaluation unreliable and the employment letters non-compliant with 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1) and insufficient to show progressive experience. AAO also independently found Petitioner failed to meet at least three of six exceptional ability criteria (no license, no salary comparison, no membership, no recognition beyond employer).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor will extend beyond the Petitioner's employer”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the claims of positive economic impact have not been substantiated”
“it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner's work in the proposed endeavor would have impact that extends beyond his current employer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“we question the integrity of the evaluation because it is not signed and because it does not provide any analysis”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it is insufficient to simply submit documents without demonstrating how the work is actually progressive”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner has not submitted evidence that he is a member of a professional association”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record contains no studies, analysis, articles, or statistics linking the Petitioner's work to any national economic benefits”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding (advanced degree) sua sponte, making the eligibility failure broader than the Director's original denial. AAO also noted counsel's cover letter contained identical language to recommendation letters, questioning their independence and authenticity. Petitioner's argument that Dhanasar requires a one-to-one comparison of impact with Dr. Dhanasar's endeavor was rejected as a misunderstanding of precedent.
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. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(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