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, sought to continue working for U.S. employers designing and maintaining electrical control panels and switchgear used by utility companies.
Field: electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner's master's degree in management information systems qualified him as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its customers to impact the field of energy systems maintenance and design”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“The record does not contain evidence of any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's employment”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not indicate how his continued employment in the field will affect the field on a national level”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“As the petition was filed in 2019, this letter cannot serve as evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner cannot infer the impact of the endeavor without evidence”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO expressly analogized the case to Dhanasar's own example of a classroom teacher, reasoning that the Petitioner's work, though STEM-related, did not extend beyond his employer and its clients. A footnote also disregarded a post-filing-date employment letter under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak as it postdated the petition's filing.
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
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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