The Petitioner proposed to lead planning, coordination, and execution of U.S. infrastructure and public development projects—including transportation, institutional, and civic facilities—with a focus on sustainable design, climate resilience, and structural safety using technologies such as BIM, AutoCAD, and modular steel systems.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The claimed links between the Petitioner's construction work and the activities undertaken by clients are too tenuous and indirect to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“The importance of a given industry does not establish the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor within that industry.”

“he has not established that his proposed endeavor would advance those goals more broadly, beyond the specific projects he would undertake.”

“The Petitioner does not submit evidence showing that his proposed endeavor has created, or can be reasonably expected to create, sufficient employment to establish national importance.”

“these materials do not specifically describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential impact. Rather, these materials amount to background information about the general subject.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the claimed links between the Petitioner's construction work and the activities undertaken by clients are too tenuous and indirect to establish the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these materials do not specifically describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential impact. Rather, these materials amount to background information about the general subject.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not claimed or established that he invented or innovated these technologies.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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

SCOPS had already conceded substantial merit of the endeavor (prong 1, first element), so the sole dispositive issue was national importance. The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 under Bagamasbad. The decision repeatedly emphasizes that using important industry technologies (BIM, AutoCAD, modular steel) does not itself confer national importance on an individual's proposed endeavor, and that indirect downstream benefits to clients' industries are too tenuous. The appeal letters from officials and new background materials were found non-material because they still did not address the specific proposed endeavor's national importance.

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