dismissedMAY222025_02B52032025-05-22 · 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 proposed to work as a project manager in the consumer goods industry, providing 'strategic innovation and portfolio optimization' services including risk mitigation, cost reduction, and sustainability improvements for the companies he works with.
Field: project management in consumer goods industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO agreed the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not an issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the impact of his work appears limited to only their operations and did not affect the project management industry as a whole”
“it is not the field or industry but the proposed endeavor itself that must be shown to be of national importance”
“his assertions are insufficient, on their own, to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his burden”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's professional services in the area of project management would impact the U.S. business ecosystem more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“while the letters underscore the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, they do not establish its national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · credited
- other · discounted
“we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to the increased demand for project managers”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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 expressly distinguishes substantial merit from national importance, analogizing to Dhanasar's STEM-teacher example, and declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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