dismissedJUN262025_05B52032025-06-26 · 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 beneficiary, a senior software engineer at an automotive manufacturing company, proposed to develop advanced cybersecurity methodologies using machine learning to secure emerging cyber threats and protect user data, and to innovate in software-defined vehicles.

Field: software engineering / automotive cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed the beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it does not speak to how the Beneficiary's work as a single senior software engineer continuing his role within a multi-billion-dollar automotive manufacturing company would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”

“Although these letters express confidence in the Beneficiary's abilities and discuss his responsibilities, job performance, and accomplishments, they do not illustrate a specific proposed endeavor of national importance.”

“Merely working in an important industry or field does not establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects it claims are implications of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor”

“The Petitioner has not defined an endeavor of national importance that the Beneficiary will undertake.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not illustrate a specific proposed endeavor of national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“it does not speak to how the Beneficiary's work as a single senior software engineer... would have a potential prospective impact of national importance.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“evidence of the Beneficiary's job experience and performance generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor... but to the second prong.”
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
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

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 rejected petitioner's argument that SCOPS misapplied preponderance standard, noting SCOPS acknowledged each piece of evidence by name; petitioner's reliance on company's own importance and industry-wide economic/safety benefits was found conflated with endeavor-specific impact.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The petition never defined an endeavor beyond the beneficiary continuing as one senior engineer at a multi-billion-dollar automaker; the company's importance and speculative societal ripple effects could not substitute; prong one failed.

Transferable lesson

An employer petition must define the beneficiary's own endeavor, not invoke the company's importance; debugging and integration duties plus industry-scale ripple claims do not make one engineer's work nationally important.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · us_competitiveness · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer