dismissedDEC162025_02B52032025-12-16 · combined

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 Petitioner, a Systems Engineer III for an automotive safety technology supplier, proposed to design and develop Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and integrate them into next-generation vehicles to improve vehicle safety and performance.

Field: automotive engineering (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO's prior decision found the Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not revisited on motion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner cannot establish the national importance of his individual proposed endeavor by relying on his employer's reputation and market position”

“Benefits to a specific employer, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance”

“assertions that the Petitioner's work has the potential to "usher in a new era of automotive innovation" appear to inflate the nature and reach of his individual endeavor”

“it does not meaningfully distinguish between the technologies offered by his employer and comparable automatic emergency braking technologies that are integrated into almost all new vehicle models”

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that any technological advancements and public safety benefits resulting from his employer's operations would be directly attributable to his work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner cannot establish the national importance of his individual proposed endeavor by relying on his employer's reputation and market position”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“it does not meaningfully distinguish between the technologies offered by his employer and comparable automatic emergency braking technologies”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“he has not established eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”
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

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 partially conceded error, clarifying that it had not intended to impose a percentage-based threshold (e.g., requiring evidence 'every vehicle' would adopt the technology) as a requirement under Dhanasar's first prong, but nonetheless affirmed the ultimate national-importance failure on the merits. Petitioner cited USDOT/NHTSA federal safety policy reports and HLDI industry adoption data on motion to reopen, which AAO acknowledged as showing genuine public-safety benefits of the technology broadly but still found insufficient to tie those benefits specifically to the Petitioner's individual contributions as opposed to his employer's or industry's general achievements.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Coelho
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer