dismissedJUN252026_01B52032026-06-25 · appeal
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 senior sourcing specialist, proposed to develop an initiative using data analytics, Six Sigma methodologies, and blockchain to enhance supply chain resilience in underserved U.S. regions.
Field: supply chain / procurement · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that his endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of national importance”
“his plan provided only high-level objectives and brief summaries without adequate details as to how he would specifically accomplish such objectives”
“working in an important field alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“these generalized articles and reports do not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor, or otherwise establish how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have a nationally important impact”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his academic accomplishments are sufficient to demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner has not shown through evidence in the record that his published work has been frequently cited by independent researchers”
“the letters do not further elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record of success”
“he has submitted little evidence of his purported progress, including documentation showing how he plans to fund his endeavor”
“the letter is conclusory and does not specifically state an interest by the South Carolina government in implementing the Petitioner's future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“his plan provided only high-level objectives and brief summaries without adequate details”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“has not shown through evidence in the record that his published work has been frequently cited by independent researchers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not further elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“not demonstrated that his academic accomplishments are sufficient to demonstrate he is well positioned”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“these factors are not sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“do not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor, or otherwise establish how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have a nationally important impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
1,312coded 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 withdrew SCOPS' favorable prong-1 finding sua sponte, finding national importance not met despite SCOPS having found it satisfied; also noted discrepancy between citation counts submitted initially versus post-RFE, and flagged a recommendation letter's grammatical anomalies as raising questions about its authenticity/probative value.
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. 103.5
- 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