dismissedOCT232024_02B52032024-10-23 · appeal · Nebraska 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 civil engineer and construction manager, proposed to continue working in the U.S. developing and implementing innovative, disaster-resilient construction methods and new materials aimed at improving efficiency, reducing waste, and enhancing infrastructure sustainability.

Field: civil engineering / construction management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a U.S.-equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-degree experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not show it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry on national or global level beyond his potential employer and customers”

“the importance of a proposed endeavor is determined by its potential prospective impact, not by the industry or occupation it involves.”

“the record lacks evidence of any interest from any individual or company in his proposed endeavor and how he will specifically facilitate and elevate the significance of his proposed work to a national level.”

“The purpose of the national interest waiver therefore is not to facilitate a U.S. job search where there may be job demands.”

“he has not established with specific, probative evidence that his proposed endeavor will have broader implications in his field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial economic or societal effects beyond his future employer and clients.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the above evidence and assertions focus on his skills and profession, which relate to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the above evidence and assertions focus on his skills and profession, which relate to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · ignored
“We thus decline to consider the new appeal documents.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the importance of a proposed endeavor is determined by its potential prospective impact, not by the industry or occupation it involves.”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 found the proposed endeavor sufficiently detailed (disagreeing with the Director on that threshold point) but still dismissed on national importance grounds; it explicitly declined to consider new letters submitted on appeal under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11) and Matter of Soriano, noting even if considered they would not change the outcome.

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.

Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer