This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to clearly define the beneficiary's proposed endeavor and failed to demonstrate that it had substantial merit and national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The AAO declined to address the remaining two Dhanasar prongs.
An industrial product company filed an EB-2 NIW petition for a product engineering team leader with a master's degree in mechanical engineering. SCOPS denied the petition and the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner inconsistently described the beneficiary's proposed endeavor between the initial filing and the RFE response, and failed to demonstrate that the endeavor had substantial merit and national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. The letters of support praised the beneficiary's skills but did not provide specific, corroborated evidence of how his particular work would produce nationally important impacts. The AAO declined to reach the remaining two Dhanasar prongs, as failure on the first prong was dispositive.
What failed: 1. The proposed endeavor was inconsistently and vaguely described — shifting from product engineering team lead duties to 'researching and developing technologies' — without sufficient specificity about actual planned activities. 2. Letters of support focused on the beneficiary's general skills and the importance of the industry broadly, rather than explaining how the specific proposed endeavor would produce nationally important impacts. 3. Arguing that working in an important industry (oil and gas/infrastructure) is itself sufficient to establish national importance of the specific endeavor — the AAO rejected this, emphasizing that Dhanasar focuses on the specific endeavor, not the field generally.
Takeaway: NIW petitioners must provide a precise, consistent, and detailed description of the specific proposed endeavor from the outset, and must tie supporting letters and evidence directly to the national importance of that specific work rather than relying on the general significance of the industry or the beneficiary's credentials alone.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The proposed endeavor was inconsistently and vaguely described — shifting from product engineering team lead duties to 'researching and developing technologies' — without sufficient specificity about actual planned activities
- Letters of support focused on the beneficiary's general skills and the importance of the industry broadly, rather than explaining how the specific proposed endeavor would produce nationally important impacts
- Arguing that working in an important industry (oil and gas/infrastructure) is itself sufficient to establish national importance of the specific endeavor — the AAO rejected this, emphasizing that Dhanasar focuses on the specific endeavor, not the field generally.
Completed
I-140 filed
Product engineering team leader specializing in integrated corrosion and erosion monitoring systems, with a master's degree in mechanical engineering
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-04-29
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to clearly define the beneficiary's proposed endeavor and failed to demonstrate that it had substantial merit and national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The AAO declined to address the remaining two Dhanasar prongs.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.