dismissedJAN022025_01B52032025-01-02 · 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 Beneficiary, a Design Release Engineer for an automotive manufacturer, proposed to continue electrical system design, testing, and implementation work on vehicle display systems, including for Electric Vehicles and Software Defined Vehicles.
Field: automotive electrical/display systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not shown the Beneficiary's specific projects as a design release engineer stand to impact these areas to an extent that her proposed work holds national importance.”
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the profession or industry in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“It is insufficient to claim a proposed endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's specific proposed work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or her assigned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,501coded 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 explicitly distinguishes national importance of an industry/field from national importance of the specific individual endeavor, rejecting expert academic letter that conflated the two.
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.
- 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