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 Beneficiary, an EV battery cell engineer, proposed to continue developing Thermal Runaway Protection strategies and improving the safety and performance of Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems for electric vehicles in the United States.
Field: mechanical engineering / EV battery cell technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director appears to have conflated the second prong with the first prong in the discussion of national importance.”
“the Director did not indicate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would prospectively have a broader societal impact by contributing to critical and emerging technologies in a STEM field”
“the Director's determination as to national importance is hereby withdrawn”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework with regard to the Beneficiary's positioning to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director's analysis of the third prong did not sufficiently address the USCIS Policy Manual with respect to those asserting a beneficiary's eligibility based on a proposed endeavor involving the advancement of a critical and emerging technology in a STEM field”
“we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets Dhanasar's third prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- resume experience · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO found the Director conflated Dhanasar's second prong (personal recognition/influence) into the first prong's national-importance analysis, and questioned the Director's unsupported doubts about letter authenticity. The Director's negative determinations on prongs 1 and 3 were withdrawn and the matter remanded for a new decision applying STEM-specific USCIS Policy Manual guidance, with AAO expressing no opinion on the ultimate outcome.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director erroneously conflated prong-1 national importance with prong-2 personal-recognition criteria and failed to apply Policy Manual STEM critical-and-emerging-technology factors to prong 3, requiring withdrawal and remand.
Keep prong 1 focused on the endeavor's prospective national/competitive significance, not the beneficiary's renown; explicitly invoke STEM critical-tech policy factors for prong 3.
specific
critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness
mixed
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