dismissedSEP272023_02B52032023-09-27 · 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, a civil engineer, initially proposed to work with a U.S. engineering firm developing business partnerships and managing large-scale construction projects; after filing, she instead described working as a Senior Engineer/Project Manager overseeing FDA-compliant plasma donation center renovations and expansions.

Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Overall, we have insufficient information concerning the proposed endeavor with which to determine whether it has national importance.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's civil engineering services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“The letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work in civil engineering offers broader implications”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“his findings stem from the significance of civil engineering and construction... The letter therefore does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“they are of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor remains unclear.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

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

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 invoked the material-change doctrine (Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)) to disregard the Petitioner's post-filing pivot from a civil-engineering business-development endeavor to a plasma-donation-center project-management role, evaluating national importance only as to the originally filed endeavor.

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
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer