dismissedSEP222023_01B52032023-09-22 · motion_reconsider · 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 civil and mechanical engineer, proposed an endeavor in transportation engineering, including work related to grant proposals submitted to the Transportation Research Board intended to advance the field.

Field: civil and mechanical/transportation engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director's underlying decision found the Petitioner qualified for the classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on motion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

“the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader implications of his work would be, or that his work would impact his field more broadly to demonstrate national importance.”

“the record lacked documentary evidence to support the Petitioner's claims about his grant proposals to the Transportation Research Board and the potential impact of his specific proposed endeavor to advance the field of transportation and engineering.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“much of the evidence related to the Petitioner's past positions rather than to his specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record lacked documentary evidence to support the Petitioner's claims about his grant proposals to the Transportation Research Board”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

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 motion primarily argues that the vacated NYSDOT 'national in scope' standard was easier to meet than Dhanasar's national importance standard; the AAO rejects this as a misreading of Dhanasar and clarifies that NYSDOT no longer carries legal authority. The decision also includes a procedural footnote clarifying that jurisdiction over the motion lies with the AAO, not the Texas Service Center, despite the Petitioner's alternative request.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of NYSDOT

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer