dismissedJUN072021_03B52032021-06-07 · 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 Petitioner, an engineer employed by a semiconductor tool manufacturer, proposed to continue developing proprietary tools and intellectual property for detection/fabrication technologies used in chip manufacturing.
Field: semiconductor/microelectronics engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; only the national interest waiver issue remained.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“But the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from[]'s operations would be attributable to his role”
“The issue here is not the broader implications of the company's innovations in[] or its cumulative effect on the semiconductor manufacturing industry, but rather the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed work”
“the record does not include sufficient information or evidence demonstrating that the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation is attributable to the Petitioner's present or future work”
“the record does not show that the specific work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that advance the semiconductor industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that an impact on this single company and its projects necessarily equates to a broader impact on the industry”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“he is not the sole inventor noted on each application”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“it also bestows the same accolades on other competitor companies based in the U.S. and abroad”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not include sufficient information or evidence demonstrating that the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation is attributable to the Petitioner's present or future 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
- 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 explicitly distinguishes the importance of the employer's industry/products from the importance of the petitioner's specific individual role, rejecting reliance on company-wide job creation (500 jobs, $70M investment) as not attributable to petitioner's specific work.
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