dismissedJAN132025_02B52032025-01-13 · 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 Senior Electrical Test Process Engineer for an automotive manufacturer, proposed to continue working on electrification, developing and testing EV batteries to make them safer, more reliable, and affordable.
Field: electrical/battery testing engineering (electric vehicles) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not shown the Beneficiary's specific projects as a Senior Electrical Test Process Engineer stand to impact U.S. battery safety and sustainability initiatives”
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the profession or industry in which the individual will work”
“none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or her assigned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor”
“it has not demonstrated that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from its overall operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary's particular role”
“the record does not show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its operations”
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”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or her assigned projects”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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/profession from the specific individual endeavor, and cites Dhanasar's own teaching-activity example as an analogy; expert academic 'advisory evaluation' letter was discounted as addressing occupation/industry generally rather than the specific endeavor.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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