dismissedMAR062023_01B52032023-03-06 · appeal · Texas 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 civil and mechanical engineer, proposed to continue work in transportation engineering, including research on bus service reliability, pedestrian/bicycle safety in transit corridors, and access to vehicle bridges, alongside his role as a university technical specialist.
Field: civil and mechanical engineering / transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance.”
“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to his past research and academic positions, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”
“The record does not include articles, reports or other evidence to support the claimed potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“Without sufficient detail, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- funding · discounted
“the evidence submitted in response to the RFE... did not support the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Even considering the descriptions of the Petitioner's ongoing projects and letters of recommendation collectively... they do not support a finding that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These items appear to relate only to the Petitioner's responsibilities as a technical specialist at the university, including teaching and academic advisement.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
249coded 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 includes a footnote alternative holding that even if it had reached prongs 2 and 3, it would still dismiss, since petitioner presented no new evidence on appeal beyond what the Director already found deficient—an explicit belt-and-suspenders rationale.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an assistant professor of Arabic, proposed to continue teaching Levantine-Modern Standard Arabic to U.S.
- The Petitioner, a secondary school teacher, proposed to develop and implement an open educational resource program to ex
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a consulting company in Missouri to design and implement a nationally adaptable tea
- The Petitioner, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of excep
- The petitioner, a mathematics teacher with 17 years of experience, proposed to operate a company offering online math tu