The Petitioner sought to work in the United States as an electro-mechanical professional in the hydrocarbon extraction industry, later revising his plan to open his own electro-mechanical training and services business in Massachusetts as CEO.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his potential future employer to impact the industry or the field”

“a shortage of workers in a particular field does not, by itself, establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is nationally important.”

“the proposed economic impact of the Petitioner's endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance or show how it would have the potential to impact the field of electro-mechanical engineering more broadly.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his potential future employer to impact the industry”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “To support this assertion he resubmits the evidence provided to the Director on motion.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor rather than the importance of electro-mechanical professionals, the petroleum industry, or energy industry.”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor mid-proceeding, from working as an employee in the hydrocarbon industry to founding his own electro-mechanical business as CEO in Massachusetts; the AAO applied the material-change doctrine (Izummi/Katigbak) to evaluate only the original endeavor as of filing. A footnote also notes the Petitioner filed a second NIW petition proposing a wind turbine servicing business.

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
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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