dismissedSEP152023_01B52032023-09-15 · 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 sought to continue their career as a chemical engineering researcher, offering process simulation and related services to any U.S. company that needed them, across industries such as environmental protection, food production, agriculture, petroleum, and medicine.
Field: chemical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We observe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was largely a job search.”
“An individual's job search does not have potential prospective impact on the national interest because it does not broadly implicate matters of national importance.”
“The performance of chemical engineering or research would directly benefit only that "great company" availing themselves of the Petitioner's chemical engineering and research services.”
“The Petitioner concedes that the performance of their endeavor, or their "contributions are not likely to translate to a direct economic impact."”
“So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“Moreover the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition.”
“Whilst they speak generally of the Petitioner's realization of certain objectives and skill in their field, they do not identify any recognition, achievements, or significant contributions to their field.”
“So the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, relevant, and probative evidence that they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not identify any recognition, achievements, or significant contributions to their field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the entirety of the letter's content lacks relevance when it comes to the evaluation of whether the Petitioner's work rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
All 6 evidence items
- citations publications · ignored
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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
The AAO expressly criticized the Petitioner's endeavor as 'largely a job search' and rebuked the Petitioner's self-description as an 'outstanding professional' as an 'elementary misunderstanding' of EB-2 classification requirements. The AAO also faulted an expert opinion letter for being authored by an adjunct professor of mathematics rather than a chemical engineer, finding the letter's content largely irrelevant to national importance.
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
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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