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.
As a legal fellow with a human rights organization, protect U.S. workers and consumers from corporate human rights abuse by filing Tariff Act forced-labor petitions with CBP and pursuing ITC and consumer-protection actions.
Field: human rights and trade law (forced-labor enforcement) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Footnote: the petition omitted the required Form ETA-750B or ETA-9089 parts J, K and L, a basis USCIS had not raised.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of the articles discuss the Petitioner or his planned projects”
“stands to sufficiently extend beyond the organization and its projects to impact his field”
“The letters from C-R- and C-O- do not contain sufficient information and explanation”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“none of the articles discuss the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she did not offer specific examples of how these strategies stand to impact his field at a level indicative of national importance”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“This documentation of his prior work, however, is insufficient to show the broader implications of his specific 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
USCIS twice misidentified the field as 'quantum computing'; AAO treated this as harmless error. The petition lacked the ETA-750B / ETA-9089 J-K-L sections, which the AAO noted as an unraised ground. Letters came from a former professor and a Nigerian organization director.
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
- Matter of O-R-E-
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