NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP252024_01B52032024-09-25 · 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 proposed to work as a staff research and development mechanical engineer for a company like Flexco, designing and developing belt conveyor equipment (belts, splices, and related components) to improve efficiency, safety, and reliability in industries such as mining, manufacturing, and material handling.

Field: mechanical/aerospace engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his PhD in aerospace engineering.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“does not have substantial merit as it will only have one company benefiting from [his] endeavor.”
“we agree with their conclusion that his endeavor will only impact his future employer.”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor will extend the life of vital equipment, or increase profits.”
“the Petitioner's RFE response included an additional new endeavor related to renewable energy, which constitutes a material change in his proposed endeavor.”
“As such, we will only consider his original proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter does not relate to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a mechanical engineer for a company that creates products for the materials handling field.”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “these factors are considered under Dhanasar's second prong, but do not establish his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “the information related to the commercialization of his prior patented work would be relevant to Dhanasar's second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “it does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how his endeavor would have broader implications.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “we must consider as a positive factor under the second Dhanasar prong ... but do not establish his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • funding · ignored
    “we will only consider his original proposed endeavor.”
    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
  • 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
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

AAO found the Petitioner's RFE response describing a renewable-energy research endeavor constituted an impermissible material change from the initially filed mechanical-engineer-for-Flexco endeavor, and refused to consider the later evidence, directing the Petitioner to file a new petition if he wished that endeavor evaluated.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer