dismissedJUN052024_02B52032024-06-05 · appeal · Texas 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, a mechanical engineer, proposed to work as a Senior Mechanical Engineer or Vessel Operations Manager on offshore construction projects linked to existing or developing offshore wind farms.

Field: mechanical engineering / offshore wind energy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's work at any particular offshore wind farm may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers who would not otherwise be employed at the referenced wind farms.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“merely proposing to work for an employer that already employs or plans to employ U.S. workers does not establish "significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong, whether the specific endeavor an individual proposes to undertake may have both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“does not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how that specific endeavor ... may have ... broader implications”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

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

Petitioner raised an APA rulemaking-procedures argument on appeal that the AAO declined to address because he did not specify how the Director's decision violated rulemaking procedures. The Director had found prong 2 satisfied but prong 3 not satisfied, while AAO affirmed dismissal solely on prong 1 and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 or 3.

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
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner conflated importance of the offshore wind industry generally with national importance of his specific proposed role, failing to show his particular work would have significant, broader impact beyond existing employer operations.

Transferable lesson

Tie the specific proposed work—not industry generalities or personal credentials—to a concrete, measurable national-scale impact distinct from what employers already achieve without the petitioner.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · field_advancement · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer