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 Beneficiary, a senior engineer, proposed to leverage his expertise in advanced manufacturing engineering to improve and modernize manufacturing automation processes.
Field: advanced manufacturing/mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner's focus when asserting national importance was on the general value ofthe Beneficiary's asserted field”
“it did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's specific employment would have a broader impact beyond its customers”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“We agree that the Petitioner has established that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor to work in the field of engineering.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director's analysis of the Beneficiary's eligibility under the third prong did not sufficiently address the guidance specifically provided by the USCIS Policy Manual regarding endeavors in STEM fields”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
AAO disagreed with the Director's favorable finding on prong 1 (national importance) even though it agreed on prong 2, and vacated the Director's negative prong 3 determination for failing to apply USCIS Policy Manual STEM factors; the case was remanded rather than dismissed or sustained despite a mixed prong outcome.
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)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision lacked reasoned analysis: prong 1 conclusion was conclusory with no national-importance discussion, and prong 3 ignored USCIS Policy Manual STEM factors—requiring remand rather than affirmance or denial.
Explicitly tie the endeavor to broader-than-customer impact and address STEM Policy Manual factors (advanced degree, critical/emerging tech, positioning) directly for prong 3.
moderate
field_advancement · stem_positive_factor
person_focused
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