The Petitioner, an electrical engineer employed in research and development, proposed to continue research on advanced power conversion technologies to enhance efficiency and reduce size of power conversion systems for applications in servers, data centers, electric vehicles, microgrids, and renewable energy systems, with planned dissemination through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's wide-ranging assertions as to potential prospective national impact crossing numerous industries and societal issues leaves substantial question as to whether her proposed research would have a significant impact on any of them”

“A mere potential contribution to various matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”

“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed research and the asserted national level impacts”

“it is not clear whether the Petitioner's research would be owned and/or controlled by her employer and whether she would be granted permission to publish this research”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner and those who drafted letters of recommendation indicated that her proposed endeavor would have a national level impact on servers, data centers, electric vehicles, microgrids, and renewable energy systems”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Merely stating that her proposed endeavor would be separate from her employment without a detailed explanation as to how this would be the case is not sufficient”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's assertions of potential prospective national importance are not sufficiently specific, based on different potential avenues of research”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The decision contains a pronoun inconsistency — the conclusion refers to 'he' ('we conclude that he has not established she is eligible'), an apparent OCR or drafting error in an otherwise female-pronoun decision. The AAO drew an extended comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research to illustrate the level of specificity and government interest required, and expressly noted the absence of U.S. government agency interest or funding as a negative factor. The AAO also raised a novel concern about whether the Petitioner's employer would permit publication of research developed on its R&D staff, treating potential proprietary restrictions as undermining the claimed national dissemination plan.

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