dismissedJUN032025_03B52032025-06-03 · appeal
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, an industrial engineer, sought to work as North American Continuous Improvement Manager for a beverage company, aiming to increase productivity, reduce inefficiencies, and help the company respond to supply chain threats.
Field: industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent master's degree in quality systems management.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner does not, however, establish how the Beneficiary's work extends beyond the Petitioner and its customers to impact the beverage industry or the industrial engineering field more broadly at a level indicative of national importance.”
“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of an industry or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“While they praise the Beneficiary's skills and past work, these letters do not establish the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“However, the record does not indicate that any of these projects or duties were unique, innovative, or otherwise had national or global implications in the beverage industry or the industrial engineering field.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not establish the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The memorandum and article do not discuss the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not indicate that any of these projects or duties were unique, innovative, or otherwise had national or global implications”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
777coded 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 decision includes several OCR-garbled redacted employer/role names (marked with brackets) that obscure some evidentiary detail but do not affect the AAO's reasoning.
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.
- 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