dismissedDEC282020_01B52032020-12-28 · appeal · Nebraska 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.

The Petitioner, an electric car system engineer, proposed to pursue work in the U.S. automotive, testing, and IT industries, potentially at companies like Tesla, GM, or Ford, and also considered starting his own electric vehicle business or making investments in start-ups.

Field: electric vehicle / automotive systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently explain the Petitioner's proposed endeavor(s) such that we are able to determine, without additional information and evidence, that his work will have both substantial merit and national importance”

“The relevant issue is not the importance of the field or industry in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“Nor does the record demonstrate that this endeavor will offer substantial economic benefits to the region in the United States where his company will operate or to the nation.”

“The evidence does not show that his proposed business venture or future investments offer benefits to the regional or national economy that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The record, however, does not include any documentation of the Petitioner's communications with Tesla, GM, or Ford, or their interest in his services as a director of automotive networking or subsystems.”

“The Petitioner, however, did not elaborate on the types of products and services his proposed electrical vehicle business will provide.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“did not elaborate on the types of products and services his proposed electrical vehicle business will provide”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“they do not render the work of an individual electric car system engineer nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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
Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

1,312coded 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

The Petitioner described multiple, alternative possible endeavors (automotive employment, testing industry, IT, entrepreneurship/investment) without settling on one specific undertaking; the AAO emphasized that a petitioner must identify a specific endeavor and cannot rely on general field-level importance or unproven job prospects with named companies like Tesla, GM, or Ford. The AAO explicitly treated both prong 1 and prong 2 failures as independent, alternate bases for dismissal.

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.

Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer