dismissedJUN092021_08B52032021-06-09 · 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 research chemical engineer, sought to continue working as a research chemical engineer for any U.S. company or educational institution requiring her expertise in chemical engineering, petroleum, and manufacturing.
Field: chemical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient, specific infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her sp ecific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner does not demonstrate how her specified proposed endeavor would somehow influence those figures”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner did not establish the national importance correlation between her specified endeavor and these wide-ranging topics.”
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
AAO cites Poursina v. USCIS to note that granting or denying a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature; footnote acknowledges Dhanasar vacated the prior NYSDOT framework.
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)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
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