NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN052019_01B52032019-06-05 · 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 Beneficiary proposed to continue working as a test/equipment engineer for a semiconductor equipment manufacturer, installing, testing, and maintaining wafer-processing equipment and related fabrication systems.

Field: semiconductor equipment engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from its operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary's role”
“the record does not include sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's future work”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the record does not include sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

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
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

The AAO treated the petitioner's evidence of its own $200 million company revenue and a general semiconductor-industry policy article as insufficiently tied to the beneficiary's individual role, reiterating that industry-wide or employer-wide importance cannot substitute for evidence of the specific endeavor's national importance; the decision expressly declined to reach prongs two and three.

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.

  • INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer