dismissedMAY282025_01B52032025-05-28 · 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 sought to continue research on seismic design and mitigation strategies to develop earthquake-resistant geotechnical systems, aiming to pursue a research-oriented or engineering role with a U.S. engineering/construction firm.
Field: geotechnical/seismic earthquake engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry on a national or global level beyond his proposed employer and its prospective clients”
“when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.”
“Employment in an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 withdrew SCOPS' finding that the endeavor lacked substantial merit but affirmed the national-importance failure as dispositive; rejected petitioner's abuse-of-discretion argument based on Buletini v. INS, holding USCIS need not individually address every piece of evidence if reasoned consideration and adequate findings are made.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl