dismissedNOV102025_02B52032025-11-10 · 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, a director of facilities and engineering at a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, proposed to continue his work leveraging his expertise in facility design, process optimization, and regulatory compliance to advance pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Field: mechanical engineering / pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities and engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's equivalent degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“The evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner as a single employee would affect the industry more broadly to rise to the level of national importance.”
“evidence of the Petitioner's past success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar's prong two analysis...It does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record lacks specific details on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how he intends to create jobs and impact the economy”
“the Petitioner does not support this research plan with relevant, probative, and credible evidence”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not further establish how his proposed endeavor will have an economic impact or create employment opportunities”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not support this research plan with relevant, probative, and credible evidence”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
- Record of success insufficient · p1 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,358coded 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 →
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(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