dismissedJUN122024_07B52032024-06-12 · 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 specializing as a Body Dimensional Specialist in the automotive industry, proposed to use his mechanical engineering experience to help automotive companies improve operations, productivity, and profitability, focusing on process management, frame/stamping, painting/assembly, product development, and quality.

Field: mechanical engineering (automotive industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; AAO agreed and this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not submit evidence specifying how he, as an individual mechanical engineer, will employ U.S. workers or create other significant positive economic effects.”

“Rather than focusing on the importance of an industry in general, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“The record indicates that the Petitioner proposes to work with individual companies and the relevant evidence does not demonstrate that his work as a mechanical engineer will have any broader influence on his field.”

“Without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed work as a mechanical engineer extends beyond his prospective employers to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

“These employers praise the Petitioner's experience, skills, and past work for the company, but do not discuss any impact his proposed endeavor ma have on the automotive industry more broadly.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“praise the Petitioner's past accomplishments... but they do not discuss any impact of the Petitioner's work in his field or discuss his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit evidence detailing how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would contribute to these national concerns beyond his work for individual employers”
AAO decision text

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
Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
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 noted a USCIS system email erroneously informed Petitioner his petition was approved, but clarified this was sent in error before the Director's actual denial. AAO also cited Fifth Circuit precedent (Amin v. Mayorkas) affirming USCIS need not address every piece of evidence when reasoned consideration is given.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer