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 NPI Operation Project Manager, proposed to innovate semiconductor chip testing and develop an interactive program management dashboard to enhance semiconductor testing processes.
Field: semiconductor chip testing / project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO did not disturb that Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not provide further details on the specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that she would focus on to illustrate the nature of the work”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or her assigned projects or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor”
“without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how her proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond the purported stakeholders to impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or her assigned projects or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner argued SCOPS applied a stricter-than-preponderance standard; AAO rejected this as an unsupported general assertion. AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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-
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