dismissedNOV242025_03B52032025-11-24 · appeal
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, an optical engineer employed at a large technology company, proposed both to continue his employment as an engineer improving optical sensor products and to continue research on nano-optical elements and high-performance, low-cost optical modules for applications like AI sensing, AR/VR interfaces, and facial verification.
Field: optical sciences / applied physics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his master's degree in applied physics.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that being an engineer atl !would have broader implications, beyond potentially improving I I products and increasing its market share”
“the impact of his work would not sufficiently extend beyond his employer”
“the Petitioner's work forl la for-profit entity, is therefore not the focus of the CET's list, and does not establish his engineering work is of national importance”
“the Petitioner's assertion that he will develop patents that advance the industry as a whole is not substantiated in the record”
“the Petitioner's work for them as anl lis not sufficiently related to job creation”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not provided a meaningful or persuasive model or plan for future activities related to his research endeavor”
“he has no postdoctoral research experience in or related to the field of his proposed endeavor”
“The record does not establish the Petitioner has maintained the previous progress he achieved towards his specific proposed research endeavor”
“the record does not otherwise contain any evidence that the Petitioner himself has received U.S. government funding, or that he initiated or was the primary award contact on any funding proposals”
“the letters do not describe how the Petitioner will carry out future research activities given that he is no longer a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or a full-time researcher”
“the record is insufficient to establish the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal on this basis.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not describe how the Petitioner will carry out future research activities given that he is no longer a graduate student”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“beyond having been cited in published works, the articles do not describe how his future research endeavor has interest or support from others”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not otherwise contain any evidence that the Petitioner himself has received U.S. government funding”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has no postdoctoral research experience in or related to the field of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the letter does not establish that he is responsible for new product development”
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
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
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 partially reversed SCOPS, finding national importance established for the petitioner's separate research endeavor (but not his day-job engineering endeavor at his employer), an unusual split treatment of two distinct endeavors under prong one within the same case; ultimately dismissed on prong two as dispositive, expressly declining to reach prong three under Bagamasbad.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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