dismissedNOV182024_02B52032024-11-18 · 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 Beneficiary, a data engineer and manager working for a pharmaceutical company, intended to continue developing, implementing, and managing master data management systems and digital platforms using AI and machine learning to optimize laboratory workflows, clinical trial data integration, and drug research and development processes.

Field: data engineering / master data management in pharmaceutical industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional with a U.S.-equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not show that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the U.S. data, pharmaceutical, or healthcare industry on national or global level beyond his employer”

“these assertions and evidence primarily focus on the Beneficiary's experience, skills, and the importance of his profession, and relates to Dhanasar's second prong”

“The record further lacks evidence of any particular interest of significance in his proposed data work (other than from his employer)”

“The general significance or potential impact of these industries therefore does not specifically inform the importance of the Beneficiary's own proposed work within the Company”

“The Petitioner's inability to satisfy Dhanasar's first prong is dispositive of this appeal”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“these assertions and evidence primarily focus on the Beneficiary's experience, skills, and the importance of his profession”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“relates to Dhanasar's second prong, which 'shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national'”
AAO decision text
degree · credited
other · discounted
“The record lacks probative evidence that the potential impact of these industries would be directly attributable to the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the record contains no evidence, that the Company itself publishes scientific articles or widely disseminates publicly its clinical studies and findings beyond its own business interests”
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
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

The decision notes in a footnote that the Beneficiary's resume lists a different current employer (a dietary supplements company, as data manager) than the pharmaceutical company petitioner, and that this other employer had previously obtained an approved EB-2 petition for him without a national interest waiver, with a 2015 priority date.

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.

Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer