dismissedNOV202025_02B52032025-11-20 · 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, an architectural designer employed by a large architecture firm, proposed to continue working on facade and bridge design for firm projects, including a major hospital/cancer-care facility, framed as advancing the U.S. architectural sector.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's endeavor of working as an architectural designer for a firm in the United States is not nationally important, as its impact would be limited to his employer and its clients.”
“he has not demonstrated the national importance of the project and how the aforementioned benefits of the project would be directly attributable to his particular role as an architectural designer.”
“these documents do not corroborate the Petitioner's statements regarding the potential impact of the project.”
“explaining they demonstrate the importance of his field, not his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they similarly praise his skills and abilities, but do not speak to or corroborate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish whether his designs were adopted in the final design plan or what his role was or will be for the project.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“SCOPS also discussed the articles submitted by the Petitioner, explaining they demonstrate the importance of his field, not his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these documents do not corroborate the Petitioner's statements regarding the potential impact of the project.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- 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
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
Footnote addresses a harmless clerical error where SCOPS mislabeled the Petitioner's employer as an accounting firm rather than an architectural firm, finding it did not affect the outcome under Matter of O-R-E-'s harmless-error framework.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
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