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 HVAC mechanical engineer, proposed to continue working as an HVAC engineer for a U.S. employer and its clients, managing projects such as HVAC system selection, duct and piping design, and energy efficiency work.
Field: mechanical engineering (HVAC) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she does not identify the specific HV AC projects she plans to undertake in the United States.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its clientele to impact the mechanical engineering field or HVAC industry more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake in the United States has national importance”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, did not author the article.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific employer”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's finding regarding the missing Form ETA-750B (petitioner had provided it on RFE) but still dismissed on prong 1 grounds. A footnote clarifies that petitioner's skills/experience evidence relates to prong 2, not prong 1's national importance analysis, illustrating the AAO's conflation-of-field-vs-endeavor reasoning. The AAO expressly adopted the Director's prong 2 and 3 findings without independent analysis, citing Matter of P. Singh.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor beyond generic HVAC engineering employment duties, and showed no evidence the work would impact the field or economy beyond her employer's clientele.
Define a concrete endeavor (not just a job/field) and provide evidence of its prospective scale—job creation, economic effects, or field-wide impact—beyond the employer's own operations.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
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