dismissedJUN032026_01B52032026-06-03 · 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, a process controls engineer, proposed to continue optimizing assembly and testing processes for electric vehicle battery manufacturing at his employer, an automotive company.

Field: mechanical/process controls engineering (EV battery manufacturing) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS determined, and AAO did not dispute, that the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced-degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the impact of the proposed endeavor "appears to be localized to [the Petitioner] and would be of most benefit to that entity and its immediate customers/clients and business partners."”

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint such as the Petitioner, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”

“it is insufficient to claim a proposed endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”

“The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“The letters ... do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field or industry”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work offers broader implications”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or his assigned projects or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint such as the Petitioner, are not sufficiently relevant”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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

2,501coded 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 reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary, but included a footnote stating that even if it had addressed them, SCOPS's findings that the Beneficiary was not well-positioned and that the balance did not favor waiver would still support dismissal, effectively pre-endorsing SCOPS's unreviewed reasoning on the reserved prongs.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer