dismissedDEC012022_01B52032022-12-01 · 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.

Petitioner, a mechanical engineer employed as a Supplier Development Engineer in the automotive industry, proposed to share her expertise in product development and quality management with employers, and also referenced developing an 'aeronautical meal cart' and prior ergonomics research for a university.

Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record 'does not demonstrate that the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance' because it 'does not convey an understanding of how the [P]etitioner's proposed employment activities stand to have a broader impact on her field.'”

“the non-compete clause in the Petitioner's employment contract with precludes her from continuing to develop her aeronautical meal cart and from engaging in any other employment, consulting, or other business activity”

“her endeavor appears to be limited to providing her services for the benefit of and its clients and customers.”

“do not address the Petitioner, her proposed endeavor, and how the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake will have 'national or even global implications within a particular field'”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 'specific endeavor'”

“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's duties at include conducting research in the areas of ergonomic and reengineering sustainability for airlines.”

“letter does not address how the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake-which appears to be as a mechanical engineer for will have 'national or even global implications'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“does not address how the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake will have 'national or even global implications within a particular field'”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“her endeavor appears to be limited to providing her services for the benefit of and its clients and customers”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“do not address the Petitioner, her proposed endeavor, and how the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake will have 'national or even global implications'”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the memorandum does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's duties at include conducting research in the areas of ergonomic and reengineering sustainability for airlines”
AAO decision text

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 conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

746coded 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

AAO found petitioner's non-compete clause with her employer effectively confined her endeavor to employer-specific benefit, undermining national importance; expert letter and industry articles were dismissed for addressing field importance rather than the specific endeavor.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of V-K-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer