dismissedNOV162023_06B52032023-11-16 · 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 civil engineer and construction project manager with an MBA, proposed to continue working as a project manager in the U.S. construction industry, with a stated focus on 'multimodal transport logistics.'
Field: civil engineering / construction project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record establishes he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; exceptional ability claim not considered further.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“These facts establish the overall importance of infrastructure projects, but they do not give national importance to the work individual project managers employed in that field.”
“The Petitioner submitted background evidence about the infrastructure crisis, but did not explain how his specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications beyond individual projects.”
“Dhanasar requires the Petitioner to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, rather than the national importance of the overall industry or field.”
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that a significant proportion of the economic benefits arising from infrastructure projects are attributable to project managers.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the professor did not provide any specific details about how the proposed endeavor, in particular, has national importance.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner has not explained how this project has broader implications for the infrastructure crisis.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“These materials provide general information about the infrastructure crisis, but they do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Most of the Petitioner's affidavit focused on his past experience rather than specific details about his proposed work in the United States.”
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
- 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 addressed and rejected the Petitioner's procedural argument that the Director's denial was insufficiently explained, finding the Director's identified weaknesses adequate to support denial despite minimal discussion of prong three.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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