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 proposed to work as a process engineering project manager, helping companies optimize financial processes, reduce costs, and improve operational efficiency.
Field: process engineering / project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO questioned whether the record establishes an advanced degree or five years of progressive experience, but reserved the issue as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 finding.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not sufficiently show the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor such that it satisfies Dhanasar 's first prong”
“he does not explain how the project management services his endeavor would provide are distinguishable from those of other project managers”
“these objectives simply describe the typical duties of a project manager and do not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the relevant question under Dhanasar 's first prong is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The record contains insufficient evidence that the proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
“we note that shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion is of little probative value because it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The articles and reports provide only general background information on these industries and fields and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO expressed skepticism about whether Petitioner's proposed endeavor was actually in the STEM field, noting his job duties appeared to be business/financial management rather than engineering, but found this immaterial since prong 1 failed regardless; also reserved threshold EB-2 advanced degree question as unnecessary to reach.
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
- 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