dismissedMAR052026_05B52032026-03-05 · appeal · SCOPS 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 Beneficiary, a quality assurance manager with 25 years of experience, proposed to work as a quality manager of On-Site Support North America for an aerospace cabin-interiors manufacturer, contributing to safety and quality control in the aerospace industry and supporting U.S. job creation.

Field: quality assurance / aerospace manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not provided any other corroborating evidence that somehow the Beneficiary's methodology widely impacted the aviation or aircraft manufacturing industry as a whole”

“the testimonial evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond his employer, its business partners, and its clientele”

“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular and merely provides an overview of the relevant industries”

“The claims of economic benefits from the Beneficiary's endeavor are too attenuated to demonstrate 'substantial positive economic effects.'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not provide persuasive and corroborating information about the endeavor's impact rising to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular and merely provides an overview of the relevant industries”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record lacks corroborating documents to support the Petitioner's claim that the new jobs and employment in Alabama are directly linked to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor activities and economic activities”
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
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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

SCOPS had already found substantial merit under prong 1 but denied on national importance; the AAO agreed only on national importance, making it the sole dispositive issue. The decision draws an explicit comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research to illustrate the evidentiary gap. The 'Red Binder Protocol' quality-assurance methodology was the centerpiece of the national-importance argument but was found to benefit only the employer and its clients. The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 per INS v. Bagamasbad.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer