dismissedJUL252024_08B52032024-07-25 · 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, an electrical engineer with experience in telecommunications and IT, proposed to provide consultancy services in electrical engineering, software engineering, IoT, cybersecurity, and sustainable energy technologies to U.S. companies in the energy, telecommunications, and railway sectors.
Field: electrical engineering / IT / telecommunications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's specific work in the field stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the energy, telecommunications, and railway industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence focuses on the importance of industries in which he will work and the benefits of STEM employment generally, rather than the benefits of his specific proposed endeavor to our nation.”
“neither the Petitioner nor Mr. K- offered a detailed description explaining the means through which he will prospectively deliver electrical engineering and IT-related consultancy services, supported by documentary evidence”
“Mr. F- does not specifically explain how the Petitioner, through his proposed endeavor will have a significant prospective impact on the United States”
“the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to substantially impact the field at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not specifically discuss the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and explain how the products and services provided therein will significantly impact our nation”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not sufficiently support a finding that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he did not explain how the Petitioner's employment as a systems specialist with W-E- will produce benefits to our nation at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
1,619coded 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 prongs 2 and 3 as dispositive of the appeal on prong 1 alone, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of D-L-S- for the principle that agencies need not resolve unnecessary issues.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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