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, currently employed in the U.S. as a fire alarm systems estimator, sought to continue working as an electrical and automation engineer, with an appellate claim of a prospective role in the petroleum/oil and gas sector.
Field: electrical and automation engineering / petroleum industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not hold an advanced degree and failed to document five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; employment letters lacked required job titles/addresses under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1), and one letter covered post-filing-date employment that could not be counted.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the petition indicates that the Petitioner will work as an electrical and automation engineer in the petroleum industry without documenting what kind of work, specifically, he will undertake.”
“we will evaluate his endeavor's national importance based on the specific nature of that endeavor and the impacts that will be attributable to it, rather than simply the field the endeavor is in.”
“This letter does not establish what impact the Petitioner proposes to have on his field.”
“The record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor would have national implications in his field, have a substantial economic benefit, or otherwise benefit the United States on a level that rises to national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“This letter does not establish what impact the Petitioner proposes to have on his field.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The employment letters provided do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §204.5(g)(1).”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not document how these relate to any specific prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor in the United States”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
Petitioner argued for a 'one-to-one' comparison of his impact to that of Dr. Dhanasar himself, citing documentation about Dhanasar's real-world career; AAO rejected this as unsupported by any legal authority and misunderstanding the nature of precedent. AAO also went beyond the Director's decision to independently withdraw the finding that Petitioner qualified as an EB-2 advanced degree professional, despite this not being challenged on appeal.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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