dismissedMAR242025_06B52032025-03-24 · 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 sought to continue working in the United States as an industrial engineer, addressing challenges in manufacturing, supply chain management, and healthcare systems.
Field: industrial engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“when determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
“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.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“the national shortage of STEM professionals is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer(s) to impact his field of industrial engineering”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not detail how the Petitioner's particular endeavor will impact the industry on a nationally important level.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed endeavor would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the publications he submitted...generally highlight the importance of the manufacturing industry”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,589coded 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
The Director had not made a determination on substantial merit; AAO found substantial merit satisfied but affirmed denial solely on national importance, reserving prongs 2 and 3.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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