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 IT professional with a 15-year career in engineering/IT project management, claimed he would contribute to technology, information systems, and IT project management, but on appeal indicated his immediate plan was to pursue advanced studies rather than a specific defined endeavor.
Field: computer and information systems / IT project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not specifically identify a proposed endeavor, thus neglecting to clarify precisely how he would achieve these stated goals.”
“he does not describe specific contributions or advancements he intends to make through his endeavor, nor does he specify a proposed endeavor”
“the record does not show the proposed endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or its potential to provide substantial economic benefits to the region where the endeavor would operate or to the country as whole.”
“his immediate focus is on educational pursuits and not a specific endeavor that will have "national or even global implications"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner discussed his past work in the field of engineering and did not identify a specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
- degree · discounted
“indicating that his immediate focus is on educational pursuits and not a specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
AAO expressly adopts and affirms the Director's national-importance analysis under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis; petitioner's proposed future school/program name is redacted in the text.
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
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner never identified a specific proposed endeavor, only discussed past work, occupation, and future educational plans, so substantial merit and national importance could not be assessed.
Define a concrete, specific endeavor (not job title, past work, or study plans) and tie its scale explicitly to national-level impact before addressing other prongs.
vague
field_advancement · economic_growth_generic · national_security · us_competitiveness
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