dismissedJUN142017_01B52032017-06-14 · 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 worked as an automation and optimization supervisor (formerly SAP project manager) for a large energy company, developing and testing business applications and processes to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Field: SAP project management / IT automation and optimization · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“he has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate his proposed work at has implications beyond the company at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor”
“the scope of his employer's business activities alone is not sufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor's national importance”
“There is no indication, however, that the economic benefits of his proposed work extend beyond and its operations at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The evidence discussed above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“The Petitioner has not shown an urgent national interest in proposed work, nor has he demonstrated that he offers contributions of such value that, over all, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the scope of his employer's business activities alone is not sufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the scope of his employer's business activities alone is not sufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
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
The AAO distinguished a prior non-precedent decision (Matter of F-E-) cited by the Petitioner, noting that non-precedent decisions do not bind future adjudications and that the metallurgical engineer's endeavor there had broader industry/environmental impact absent here.
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(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