dismissedMAR042025_02B52032025-03-04 · appeal · Nebraska 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, a software engineer with a PhD in electrical and computer engineering, proposed to conduct research on ultra-wideband and millimeter-wave radar wireless communication technologies, distinct from his current employment developing data infrastructure systems for a private employer.
Field: electrical and computer engineering / wireless communications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his PhD in electrical and computer engineering.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we do not agree that his work with is nationally important, as the record does not show that the benefits of this work would result in broader implications beyond the benefits to his employer.”
“By extension, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's employer would not rise to a level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“the Petitioner has not consistently documented how he intends to pursue his proposed research activities.”
“the letters from Dr. D-L- and Dr. J-J- do not sufficiently explain their plans for ongoing research, as the letters appear to primarily discuss work that has already occurred”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his academic accomplishments are sufficient in and of themselves to demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“he has not shown that he was primarily responsible for securing the funding for the research projects.”
“he has not shown that he has has made progress towards achieving the specific proposed endeavor, or has established interest in his future research.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“he has not provided support for his assertions that his work will play a "critical role" in "advance[ing] global technological development and improve national security,"”
“he has not shown how this work would benefit the United States, beyond the direct benefit to his employer and its operations.”
“The Petitioner has also not established that the national interest in his work is sufficiently urgent to warrant a waiver of the labor certification process.”
“we cannot conclude that he has shown his work is sufficiently urgent to warrant waiving the labor certification process.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not sufficiently explain their plans for ongoing research, as the letters appear to primarily discuss work that has already occurred”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“he has not supported his statement that his citation record "far outpaces" his peers by providing comparable evidence in the record.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“he has not shown that he was primarily responsible for securing the funding for the research projects.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his academic accomplishments are sufficient in and of themselves to demonstrate he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Employer-specific benefit · p3 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
746coded 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 bifurcated the Petitioner's stated 'endeavor' into two components - his current software engineering employment and his prospective independent research - crediting national importance only to the latter. Although the Director had found prongs one and two satisfied, the AAO on de novo review withdrew the prong-two finding sua sponte, yet still separately reached and relied on prong three (the Director's original basis for denial) to dismiss rather than remand, reasoning remand would serve no purpose.
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)
- Buletini v. INS
- 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