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 Petitioner, a Software and System-on-Chip Architect, proposed to continue developing hardware/software architecture for autonomous vehicles and driver-assistance systems, including chip design, sensor integration, and automotive cybersecurity protocols, largely in connection with his employer's projects.
Field: autonomous vehicle systems / semiconductor architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Benefits rendered to a specific employer and its business partners alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's particular endeavor has national importance.”
“The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“It is insufficient to claim an 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 his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 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... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field or industry”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
“a factor considered under Dhanasar's second prong”
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
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director disregarded the 2022 USCIS STEM policy update; AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit in STEM but held that policy guidance does not relax the need to show national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. AAO explicitly stated its dismissal rested on independent and alternate grounds, though only prong 1 was substantively analyzed, with prongs 2 and 3 reserved.
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)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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