dismissedFEB232026_04B52032026-02-23 · appeal · SCOPS 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 mechanical engineer, proposes to establish and manage an industrial services company in Texas providing preventive and corrective maintenance, process efficiency consulting, predictive diagnostics, Lean Six Sigma-based consulting, and workforce training programs for manufacturing, construction, and heavy equipment industries.

Field: mechanical engineering / industrial maintenance services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering obtained May 11, 2017, but his employment as a maintenance technician ran from 2015 to 2021, meaning the five years of progressive post-bachelor's experience required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) was not established. SCOPS had found him eligible as an advanced degree professional, but AAO disagreed. Petitioner did not pursue the exceptional ability track on appeal, so that issue was reserved.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the submitted documents do not specifically mention the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and do not indicate the government's interest in supporting or promoting the use of the Petitioner's services.”

“the record does not contain sufficient information and evidence to establish that his proposed business activities to provide industrial maintenance services, process efficiency consulting, and workforce training programs will have broader implications within the manufacturing, construction, and heavy equipment industries more broadly rather than benefiting his clients.”

“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his training or instructional activities offer benefits that extend beyond his trainees or students to impact his field more broadly.”

“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”

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

“the Petitioner has not explained the basis for these financial projections in the business plan, nor does the record contain sufficient evidence supporting these claims.”

“Even if all the projections in the business plan were realized, the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the company] will have an impact on a particular industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not include sufficient persuasive and corroborating information about the endeavor's impact rising to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained the basis for these financial projections in the business plan, nor does the record contain sufficient evidence supporting these claims.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the submitted documents do not specifically mention the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and do not indicate the government's interest in supporting or promoting the use of the Petitioner's services.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish that he has five years of progressive experience in the specialty after obtaining his bachelor's degree on May 11, 2017.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,312coded 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

Unusually, SCOPS had found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional and had granted prongs 1 (substantial merit) and 2 (well positioned), denying only on national importance (part of prong 1) and prong 3. The AAO reversed SCOPS on the threshold EB-2 finding, concluding the Petitioner's post-bachelor's progressive experience was insufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) because his employment predated his 2017 degree. The AAO also agreed with SCOPS that substantial merit was shown but found national importance lacking, making prong 1 dispositive. The Petitioner abandoned the exceptional ability track on appeal. The decision also notes the company was to be located in Texas (SCOPS is identified as 'Service Center Operations (SCOPS)' rather than a named regional center).

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Benefits reached his clients, not the manufacturing field; financial projections were unexplained; and the worker-shortage argument routed back to the labor-certification process the waiver would bypass.

Transferable lesson

A worker-shortage claim points back to the labor certification being waived, and training that benefits only trainees does not reach the field.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · us_competitiveness · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer