dismissedMAR102022_01B52032022-03-10 · 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.

A marine engineer proposed to continue working for U.S. companies in the marine/naval engineering field, later reframed as helping a prospective employer establish and grow in the U.S. and develop naval structure technologies for offshore drilling.

Field: marine/naval engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence is insufficient to show that [the] proposed endeavor will impact the field of [m]arine [e]ngineering more broadly as opposed to primarily impacting an employer, single clients, or projects.”

“the [P]etitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects.”

“The prospective employer's 10-year estimate does not reference the Petitioner or the proposed endeavor.”

“they do not address the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor, and how the specific endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects that rise to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

media · discounted
“those articles present a set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing the petition and they may not establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they do not address the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor, and how the specific endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects that rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“The prospective employer's 10-year estimate does not reference the Petitioner or the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“they do not address how the prospective endeavor may have national importance.”
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

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 post-filing COVID-19 pandemic articles as impermissible after-acquired evidence under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., an unusual temporal-evidence argument. AAO expressly reserved judgment on prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.

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)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer