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, an engineering manager with a background in automotive manufacturing, sought to continue working as an engineering/quality manager for U.S. manufacturing companies, planning and coordinating engineering projects and implementing lean manufacturing and quality/safety improvement techniques.
Field: mechanical/production engineering (automotive manufacturing) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its operations to impact the field of production engineering or the U.S. manufacturing industry more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the scope of that company's ... production alone is not sufficient to demonstrate her proposed endeavor's national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific employer”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's activities would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO explicitly distinguishes the importance of the petitioner's field/industry from the importance of her specific endeavor, and rejects industry-wide job-creation/shortage articles as insufficient to establish national importance of her individual role.
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.
- Poursina v. USCIS
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