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 Venezuelan-trained mechanical engineer, proposed to work as a project manager through his own Florida company, offering mechanical engineering services (planning and executing mechanical, electrical, and industrial projects) to U.S. companies.
Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's employer letters showed overlapping employment periods, lacked detail on duties and hours worked, and did not establish full-time, progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty (project management/mechanical engineering) totaling five years, as required to equate his foreign bachelor's degree to a U.S. master's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the economic impact ofL__JUS is limited to its clients, and therefore does not have the broader implications required in Dhanasar”
“the evidence does not show how the Petitioner's work for his clients will potentially have broader implications for the manufacturing industry or address supply chain problems”
“the author states that the Petitioner "will be asked to present at lectures, congresses, and seminars," and will thereby "distribute his knowledge to other professionals in the field."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“this evidence does not show that he gained post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter makes projections that are unrelated to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“it supports the Director's conclusion that the economic impact ofL__JUS is limited to its clients”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree equivalency), reversing course sua sponte despite the Director having found this element satisfied, then separately dismissed on Prong 1 national importance grounds, reserving Prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary under Bagamasbad/Matter of D-L-S-.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers