dismissedMAR262025_04B52032025-03-26 · 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 cost estimator with a master's in civil engineering, proposed to work as a cost estimator in the electric vehicle industry, focusing on development of EV battery plants in the United States.

Field: cost estimation / civil engineering (EV battery plant construction) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his master's degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from the company's operations would be directly attributable to his particular role.”

“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the specific endeavor.”

“the record does not include any specific plans as to how he will provide the necessary training programs, engage with government officials, or involve in decision making processes of national projects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

media · discounted
“None of the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's name or his work”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters only demonstrate the Petitioner's accomplishments in his past engagements and projects and do not sufficiently address his specific future endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner's role as a cost estimator for EV battery plant projects is valuable for his employer; however, the Petitioner has not demonstrated”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

other · discounted
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

746coded 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 explicitly addressed and rejected Petitioner's argument that the Director failed to engage with the evidence, citing case law that agencies need not address every piece of evidence when reasoned findings are made.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer