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 controls engineer, proposed to modernize American manufacturing by integrating Industry 4.0 technologies (IIoT, SCADA, predictive analytics, intelligent safety controls) into legacy industrial automation systems to improve efficiency, reliability, and safety.
Field: controls engineering / industrial automation (Industry 4.0) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he does not have a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree”
“D-F- does not offer corroborating evidence or specific examples to support his claims”
“the authors of these letters do not provide sufficient detail explaining the significance of the Petitioner's past work”
“none of the authors offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field, or otherwise shows success or progress”
“the record does not sufficiently establish the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he does not have a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
Where this case turned
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO expressly reserved Prong 1 (national importance) as unnecessary to the disposition under Bagamasbad, dismissing solely on Prong 2. AAO rejected petitioner's argument that USCIS applied an improper 'influence' standard, finding it consistent with USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3). AAO distinguished the case from Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting the petitioner lacked a Ph.D. and had not shown government funding or comparable outside interest, and found that mere employment as an engineer does not equate to the level of relevant-entity interest shown in Dhanasar.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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