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 senior hardware reliability engineer with a multinational electronics company, proposed to continue his work designing, testing, and improving the reliability and durability of electronics hardware modules.
Field: hardware/mechanical reliability engineering (consumer electronics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the issue is not whether the field of hardware reliability engineering or the consumer electronics manufacturing industry is of national importance”
“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”
“he did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his employment alone would have any projected economic impact or create jobs at a level indicative of national importance”
“the record does not establish how any research he conducts in hardware module reliability testing, and any resulting technological advances, would sufficiently extend beyond his employer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters primarily emphasize the Petitioner's past research experience and accomplishments and relate more to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“those publications derived from his graduate studies, and his most recent article was published in 2018”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the list of duties does not clearly indicate that the position is research-oriented or involves...dissemination of any research findings”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence mainly focuses on the importance of the field and industry and the Petitioner's employer's market prominence”
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
Notable
SCOPS had already found prongs one (substantial merit) partially met and prong two (well-positioned) satisfied, leaving only national importance and prong three at issue; AAO agreed on substantial merit but found national importance lacking and expressly reserved prong three as unnecessary to reach, citing INS v. Bagamasbad's rule against advisory findings. Petitioner's citation of unpublished non-precedent AAO decisions for comparison was rejected as non-binding.
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(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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