dismissedOCT202025_01B52032025-10-20 · 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.

A civil engineer working in H-1B status proposed to continue designing highway infrastructure projects using 3D/BIM digital modeling technology, with possible future plans to start a consulting firm or join a government transportation agency.

Field: civil/transportation engineering (BIM/3D highway design modeling) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found bachelor's degree plus post-baccalaureate progressive experience equivalent to an advanced degree, satisfying underlying EB-2 classification; did not need to reach exceptional-ability claim.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor; skills and experience do not take on national importance merely because they may be potentially useful to a prospective client.”

“This evidence does not appear to support the Petitioner's description of 3D modeling skills as "scarce" within the profession.”

“The total cost savings from national adoption of BIM and 3D modeling cannot all be attributed to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“A petitioner must establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor; it cannot suffice for the petitioner to establish the overall importance of a particular subject, occupation, or field.”

“The Petitioner's training and experience in a beneficial technology does not necessarily give national importance to the specific projects he would undertake using that technology.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters do not show that the Petitioner's work has attracted the attention of government authorities who have not previously worked with the Petitioner in other capacities.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The government reports that the Petitioner cites do not discuss the Petitioner and his work specifically.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,589coded 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 AAO highlighted an internal inconsistency in the petitioner's own evidence: he described his 3D modeling skills as 'scarce' while simultaneously submitting FHWA materials and a colleague's letter describing the same technology as 'widely used' and 'a well-established technology.' The AAO also drew a sharp distinction from Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting that petitioner there was advancing new technology through research, whereas this petitioner was merely applying technology already in widespread use.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer