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 Beneficiary proposed to continue working for the Petitioner as a cost and project controls engineer, overseeing budgets, contractors, and staff on multimillion-dollar domestic and international projects, including a Florida school district's $4 billion capital improvement program.
Field: construction/project cost controls engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS denied for lack of transcripts, but Petitioner submitted degrees, transcripts, and an educational evaluation on appeal establishing an advanced degree; AAO withdrew SCOPS' determination and found the Beneficiary eligible for EB-2 classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not reflect that the Beneficiary's specific work as a cost and project controls engineer for the Petitioner would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national economy more broadly at the requisite level”
“the importance of the proposed endeavor is not evaluated by the importance of the profession in which the Beneficiary proposes to engage, but rather the specific potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor”
“the evidence provided is insufficient to establish that the position of cost and project controls engineer working on public school capital improvement projects is of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's employment alone would have any projected economic impact or job creation, at a level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- contract revenue · discounted
“does not reflect that the Beneficiary's specific work ... would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national economy more broadly at the requisite level”
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
Notable
AAO withdrew SCOPS' threshold EB-2 denial after Petitioner supplied transcripts and an educational evaluation on appeal, finding the Beneficiary eligible as an advanced degree professional, but dismissed the appeal solely on the national importance prong of Dhanasar, expressly declining to reach prongs two and three.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- 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