dismissedNOV272020_04B52032020-11-27 · 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 food scientist, proposed to continue work in food safety and quality assurance—potentially with a government agency or a pasta producer, or alternatively as a graduate assistant while pursuing a PhD—aimed at promoting food safety compliance and preventing contamination in the food production chain.

Field: food science / food safety · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Petitioner established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree via bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; exceptional-ability analysis not reached as unnecessary.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“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."”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential employers to impact his field or the U.S. food production system more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

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

“the Petitioner asserted that he plans to "work as a staff of one of the government entities or pasta producer."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
resume experience · credited
certification membership · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
“As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer.”
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
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

The AAO expressly stated it treated the failure of prong one as 'an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' and noted the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was framed inconsistently across several possible future paths (government agency, pasta producer, or PhD graduate assistantship) without documentation from any specific institution or agency.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer