The Petitioner, an electrical engineer working as an independent contractor, proposed to continue maintaining state-of-the-art optical coordinate measurement machines for U.S. auto industry corporations, asserting this reduces carbon emissions and mitigates climate change.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“does not convey an understanding of how [the Petitioner's] proposed employment activities stand to have a broader impact on the field, rising to the level of national importance”

“the generalized information in the record regarding fuel economy and public health, referenced by the Petitioner on appeal, does not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

“the record in general indicates that the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner, as an independent contractor, and the particular corporations for which he proposes to continue providing his services”

“the record does not establish how the Petitioner, as an independent contractor, demonstrates a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “neither the letters nor the remainder of the record show how the endeavor offers broad implications in the field that rise to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “those publications do not mention the Petitioner or describe the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”

  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
• 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

Notable

AAO relied on INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to justify reserving opinion on prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive; the Petitioner attempted to bootstrap national importance via generalized government climate/fuel-economy policy documents (White House, EPA, DOT) that did not mention him specifically.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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