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 process engineer, proposed to research, develop, and commercialize an ammonia-based hydrogen membrane reactor for off-grid agricultural power and low-carbon hydrogen retrofits for steam methane/autothermal reformers, separate from his current employment.
Field: chemical/process engineering (hydrogen membrane reactors, carbon capture) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his master's degree in chemical engineering.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's description of his proposed endeavor is not sufficiently detailed to understand and meaningfully consider whether it is of national importance”
“This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives and policies.”
“the growth and importance of an industry are not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
“Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated with sufficient corroborating independent and objective evidence that the research he proposes to undertake offers the claimed innovations”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor in meaningful detail”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not explained or offered evidence about the development of his intended products”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives and policies”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO expressly reclassified several of the Petitioner's letters and skill-based evidence as relevant to Dhanasar's second prong even though they were submitted and argued under prong one, then declined to reach prongs two and three as dispositive-issue economy.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers