NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT292021_03B52032021-10-29 · 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 chemical engineer employed in industry, claimed he would continue working in 'Advanced Chemical Engineering' and possibly develop new processes/techniques involving a proprietary technology, with vague indications he might also teach or research.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Foreign degree equivalency evaluation discredited as unreliable/templated and possibly prepared for a different petitioner; letters failed to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience because most authors lacked authority/knowledge of official employment history and did not show progressive responsibility.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Based on the information provided, the Petitioner has not clearly identified his proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner confuses the field, which may have substantial merit, with the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor”
“The record does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor, to the extent that it has been explained, will extend beyond the Petitioner's employer and clients”
“the claims of "$$$ millions of dollars of impact in the real world!" have not been substantiated”
“the citation record, which consist of a collective five citations, does not suggest an influence in the field commensurate with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “the evaluation contains templated language found in numerous other evaluations submitted on behalf of unrelated petitioners”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the letters did not establish how the Petitioner's work was progressive in nature”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the authors do not persuasively address or provide support for a finding that the Petitioner's future work will broadly impact the field”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the citation record, which consist of a collective five citations, does not suggest an influence in the field commensurate with national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “an acknowledgement of the Petitioner in someone else's patent is not indicative of how the Petitioner's work's influences or impacts in the field”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • 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
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
249coded 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 underlying EB-2 classification itself unmet (degree evaluation discredited as possibly prepared for a different petitioner; progressive experience letters lacked authority/foundation), rendering the NIW issue moot, but proceeded to analyze prong 1 anyway since the Director had reached it. AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that Dhanasar requires a one-to-one comparison of impact with Dr. Dhanasar's own endeavor. Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor at all, relying on vague references to continuing current employment.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Matter of Otiende
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer