dismissedSEP142021_02B52032021-09-14 · 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.

A senior process engineer at a semiconductor/materials manufacturing company sought to continue his employment work on equipment evaluation and process optimization, plus pursue future research on related materials phenomena.

Field: materials/process engineering (semiconductor-related) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”

“it is not clear the direct influence the Petitioner will have in the national impact on the field as one employee of a company”

“However, no evidence is submitted to support these assertions.”

“It is important to note that the shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“the record lacks documentation showing how the Petitioner's work on internal processes at his employer rises to the level of national importance”

“none of these documents reference[ ]or otherwise address the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed research”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

other · discounted
“Statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“none of these documents reference[ ]or otherwise address the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed research”
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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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

Decision contains apparent drafting/OCR artifacts using female pronouns ('her proposed endeavor') for a male petitioner, suggesting reused template language from another decision (likely the physical therapist shortage example).

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.

Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer