dismissedMAY302024_04B52032024-05-30 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
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, a systems engineer, proposed to work developing and launching new systems and products to help companies, initially in the food industry, improve internal processes through innovation.
Field: systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional and endeavor had substantial merit; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the initial filing or the RFE response did not provide persuasive details or corroborating documents regarding his future endeavor's innovations or its prospective impact”
“the relevant question for determining the endeavor's national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the authors of these letters summarize the information already provided by the Petitioner's resume and statements”
“the record does not demonstrate how working for a company or companies as an individual systems engineer generates such significant economic activity”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his endeavor would extend beyond his employer and its clientele to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as the evaluator does not meaningfully address the details of the endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“such evidence regarding the Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as a footnote emphasizing NIW decisions are discretionary in nature, joining other circuits on this point.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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