The petitioner proposed to work as a software engineer in a leadership role at a top cloud computing company, with plans to contribute to cloud computing infrastructure, hardware-software co-design, and AI integration. In response to an RFE he revised his plan to starting an AI infrastructure consulting firm, but that revised endeavor was deemed a material change and not analyzed.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not illustrate how his specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his company and clients to impact the industry, region, or nation more broadly”

“working in an important field alone is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“he has not specifically explained how his work as an individual software engineer for a company would have broader, nationally important implications.”

“his assertions are largely conclusory and he does not explain how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have such broader, nationally important implications.”

“the evidence submitted does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of working as an individual software engineer for a company, even in a leadership role, would have broader implications”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “the Career Plan offers little detail regarding the specific activities he intends to perform that would result in the nationally important impacts claimed.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the majority of the letters discuss the Petitioner's skills, expertise, personal attributes, and past accomplishments.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “he has provided little detail on any future research activities.”

  AAO decision text
• awards · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor from working as a software engineer at a cloud computing company to starting an AI infrastructure consulting firm in response to the RFE; he did not contest this finding on appeal, so the AAO analyzed only the original endeavor. SCOPS had found prong 2 met, but the AAO in a footnote expressly disagreed and flagged prong 2 as an additional ground for ineligibility to be addressed in future proceedings, while formally reserving it. The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as the prong 1 failure was dispositive.

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