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.
To continue research on the failure mechanics of soft materials and composites, applying finite-element analysis to improve reliability of semiconductor packaging and related materials.
Field: mechanical engineering / materials science (semiconductor packaging) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record contains inconsistencies on how the Petitioner will execute his proposed endeavor and what field the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will impact”
“without sufficient evidence of a broader impact, the record establishes a prospective impact limited to the Petitioner's employer and its clients.”
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not offer evidence of the economic impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the focus is on the impact of his prior work; not the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“statements of the economic impact of the industry do not equate to the economic impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
Notable
The petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor shifted between the initial filing (biomedical/aerospace applications), the RFE response, and the appeal (semiconductor packaging), including conflicting personal statements and a new employer disclosed only on appeal; AAO treated this inconsistency itself as undermining the national-importance showing.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
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