The Beneficiary, an Enterprise Connectivity Systems Engineer for an automobile company, proposed to design and develop new digital design verification and Enterprise Connectivity strategies to support widespread adoption and deployment of electric vehicles in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not indicate the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national or global implications in the automotive industry.”

“The Petitioner cites no evidence to support this claim, and the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would extend beyond her work for the Petitioner to broadly impact these laws and issues at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“These articles and reports attest to the importance of electric vehicles and other issues, but do not address the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”

“While D-P- and M-W-attest to the Beneficiary's accomplishments and valuable contributions to the Petitioner, they do not demonstrate that her work would extend beyond the Petitioner to impact the automotive industry on a level indicative of national importance.”

“The record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as it does not have national or global implications within her field, or other broader implications indicating national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• media · discounted

  “The article does not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as it does not mention digital design verification or Enterprise Connectivity strategies.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “These articles and reports attest to the importance of electric vehicles and other issues, but do not address the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not demonstrate that her work would extend beyond the Petitioner to impact the automotive industry on a level indicative of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

Notable

AAO emphasizes that assessment of national importance focuses on the specific endeavor, not the general importance of the field, rejecting numerous field-level policy and industry articles submitted by Petitioner (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, EV acceleration challenge, etc.) as insufficient because they did not tie to the Beneficiary's specific work.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)

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