dismissedOCT172024_02B52032024-10-17 · motion_reconsider · 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 process engineering project manager, sought an EB-2 NIW based on his work managing business process management and process engineering projects, without distinguishing his services from other project managers or showing impact beyond his employer and its clients.

Field: process engineering / business process management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO's prior appellate decision questioned whether the Petitioner actually possesses an advanced degree or five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, despite the Director's favorable finding on this point, but did not make a final determination and told Petitioner to be prepared to address it in future filings.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the personal statement neither distinguishes the Petitioner's services from those offered by other project managers nor explains how the proposed endeavor would result in broader implications that extend beyond the Petitioner's employer and its clients.”

“the opinion primarily focuses on project managers as a whole and does not address the details of the proposed endeavor or explain why the endeavor, as opposed to the work of project managers in general, would have national importance.”

“the record on appeal did not include evidence to support these assertions.”

“they address aspects of the field of the proposed endeavor, rather than the endeavor itself.”

“the Petitioner reiterates claims about labor shortages in the engineering industry, we previously addressed those claims on appeal and need not do so again on motion.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion primarily focuses on project managers as a whole and does not address the details of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“it focuses on the value of business process management and process engineering, rather than the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“they address aspects of the field of the proposed endeavor, rather than the endeavor itself”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“reiterating portions of the personal statement and reasserting prior arguments”
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
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

AAO's prior decision flagged doubt about whether the Petitioner met the threshold advanced-degree/experience requirement despite the Director's favorable finding, but declined to decide the issue and warned Petitioner to address it in future NIW filings. This motion to reconsider was narrowly limited to reviewing the prior decision for legal/policy error, and the AAO declined to revisit the labor-shortage argument already addressed on appeal.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Buletini v. INS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer