dismissedSEP122024_04B52032024-09-12 · 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, an electrical engineer, proposed to work on sustainable and intelligent energy generation, telecommunications systems, and lighting systems, implementing GTD, IoT, GSM, UMTS, and LTE technologies, and to provide workshops and courses to students and professionals.
Field: electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as advanced degree professional based on bachelor's equivalent plus five years progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner does not indicate, however, that her proposed endeavor would directly employ any United States workers or that any economic benefits would extend beyond her future employers or clients to constitute substantial positive economic effects indicative of national importance.”
“Here, the Petitioner did not submit supporting evidence to demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor.”
“While M-A-D-B- attests to the Petitioner's experience and qualifications, she does not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or indicate that it has national importance.”
“Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future employers, clients or students to impact her field more broadly in a manner indicative ofnational importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“she does not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or indicate that it has national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 →
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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