dismissedOCT022024_04B52032024-10-02 · 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 safety engineer, proposed to work with U.S. companies in construction, industrial, agriculture, and mining sectors performing risk analyses and implementing workplace safety measures to reduce accidents and improve productivity.

Field: occupational safety engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, concluding he had only about 3 years and 8 months of post-baccalaureate experience rather than the required five years.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the record does not support his assertions that his work will result in broader implications to the field, beyond the potential benefits to his immediate employer(s) or customers.”

“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual safety engineer nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”

“the Petitioner has not provided projected employment numbers and revenue growth contributable to his specific endeavor to establish substantial economic benefits”

“much of the content of the expert opinion letter and the recommendation letters lack probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter and the recommendation letters lack probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“he does not explain how any prospective training would be disseminated to the field at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“we cannot consider that experience to satisfy the regulatory requirements”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

Although the appeal was dismissed dispositively on prong one (national importance), the AAO also went further to sua sponte withdraw the Director's favorable finding on the underlying advanced-degree eligibility, concluding the Petitioner lacked five years of post-baccalaureate experience, even though this was not necessary to the outcome, and explicitly declined to issue an RFE on the point, instead cautioning the Petitioner to address it in any future filing.

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(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of D-R-
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer