remandedNOV152023_02B52032023-11-15 · appeal · Texas 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 mechanical engineer, proposed to work in the U.S. specializing in brake systems, aiming to help U.S. companies improve vehicle safety, efficiency, and regulatory compliance through innovative automotive technology.

Field: mechanical engineering (brake systems) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director incorrectly found threshold met based on bachelor's degree alone; AAO agrees he qualifies as advanced degree professional based on bachelor's plus five years progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“we agree that the submitted documentation is insufficient to meet this prong”

“the Petitioner did not provide evidence that his patent has been granted, has been successfully commercialized”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · ignored
patents · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence that his patent has been granted, has been successfully commercialized”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited
other · discounted
“we cannot conclude that the record shows that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy... would reach the level”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

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

Unusual procedural posture: rather than affirming or reversing the Director's prong findings, the AAO remands because the Director's decision failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning, citing Matter of M-P- for the requirement of a fully explained denial to permit meaningful appellate review. The AAO nonetheless previews its own concerns about each prong's evidentiary shortcomings before remanding.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's denial lacked sufficient explanation and evidentiary analysis across all three Dhanasar prongs, precluding meaningful appellate review; case remanded rather than decided on merits.

Transferable lesson

Even when remanded for procedural insufficiency, petitioners should quantify projected economic impact, job creation, or commercialization progress to substantiate national importance and readiness.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer