dismissedMAY272025_01B52032025-05-27 · 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, an airport engineer, proposed to introduce cutting-edge runway layout optimization, rapid exit taxiway design, and next-generation pavement engineering techniques to enhance the efficiency, safety, and longevity of U.S. airports.

Field: airport/civil engineering (runway and pavement design) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent master's degree in engineering.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner explains how his expertise and methodologies will achieve these goals, but does not cite any evidence to support his claims.”

“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of an industry or issues affecting an industry in general, but instead focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.”

“does not explain how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his employers to impact airport safety, the U.S. economy, and the environment more broadly”

“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national or global implications within his field or has other broader implications indicating national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“none of these articles discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
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 withdrew SCOPS' reliance on lack of U.S. worker employment potential and lack of federal endorsement as required Dhanasar factors, clarifying neither is mandatory, but still found national importance unestablished on other grounds.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer