The Beneficiary, a software engineer employed by an electrical products manufacturer, works on translating hardware into software for industrial automation tools, including vibration analyzers and a predictive maintenance software platform, used in advanced manufacturing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record is not sufficiently clear as to the Beneficiary's specific role with regard to these products”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary's specific endeavor is of national importance, and instead primarily focuses on the activities of the company”

“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the opinion letter is of little probative value as it primarily repeats the Petitioner's claims about the importance of related fields in general”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the evidence in the record related to the Petitioner's products, its customers, and its position in the market is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's specific endeavor is of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the White House fact sheets, executive orders, and articles about the field do not discuss the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, or the proposed endeavor specifically”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO distinguished the Petitioner's cited non-precedent decision (In re 20813791) and the underlying Matter of T-U-O-A- decision, noting those cases involved a beneficiary leading a $100 million NSF-funded project, unlike here where the Beneficiary's specific role and scope within the company were undefined.

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(c)
• Flores v. Garland

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