dismissedMAR222024_05B52032024-03-22 · 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, an electrical engineer with over 10 years of power systems experience, proposed to work as a power systems project manager for a North Carolina outdoor living design/build firm, overseeing installation of electrical systems.

Field: electrical engineering / power systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found insufficient evidence of five years progressive post-baccalaureate full-time experience; AAO reviewed de novo and found the Petitioner did establish the requisite five years, withdrawing this portion of the denial.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The letter did not establish that the Petitioner's work for _ _ _ _ _ _would reach beyond the company or its customers.”

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his employment would sufficiently extend beyond his employer or its customers to impact the industry or field more broadly.”

“Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the engineering industry generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”

“However, Dr. does not discuss the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, including how his employment with a single business in the United States will have an international impact.”

“the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“does not discuss the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, including how his employment with a single business in the United States will have an international impact”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited
degree · credited
other · discounted
“this article is dated 2014, nearly 10 years ago, and does not provide a current review of the industry or indicate a specific geographic location”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response.”
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

AAO withdrew the Director's threshold EB-2 finding (advanced degree/experience) in the Petitioner's favor but still dismissed on prong 1 national importance; includes an alternative-holding footnote stating the appeal would have been dismissed even if all prongs were reached, referencing the Director's prong 3 finding as well.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer