dismissedMAY072026_01B52032026-05-07 · appeal

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, COO of a startup developing fire suppression technology, proposed to continue managing operations, sales, marketing, and business development for the company while claiming this work would revolutionize fire suppression technology and address the national wildfire crisis.

Field: fire suppression technology / business operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently provide corroborating evidence that his own individual endeavor, such as certain business methods or knowledge in operational management will widely impact the fire suppression industry as a whole, beyond his employer or the employer's clients.”

“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.”

“The claims of economic benefits from the Petitioner's endeavor are too attenuated to demonstrate "substantial positive economic effects."”

“the record does not reflect that the Petitioner is developing techniques, technologies, or procedures that have the potential prospective impact of advancing the field of fire suppression technology”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they generally attest to his operational accomplishments, employment history, and duties... and do not show that his work relates to developing fire suppression technology itself.”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“these documents establish the overall significance and substantial merit of the field, not the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“such evidence is not probative as it does not mention the Petitioner's individual endeavor or its impact rising to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“The claims of economic benefits from the Petitioner's endeavor are too attenuated to demonstrate "substantial positive economic effects."”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“These activities do not specifically pertain to development of fire suppression technology but focus on general operation and management of a company.”
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

2,501coded 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 draws an explicit contrast between the Petitioner's executive/operational COO duties and Dr. Dhanasar's own technical R&D work (hypersonic propulsion), emphasizing that individual endeavor impact, not employer/company innovation, must be shown. Also applies harmless-error doctrine (Matter of O-R-E-) to excuse SCOPS's single mischaracterization of the endeavor as 'product designing.'

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-
Matter of O-R-E-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer