dismissedJAN302025_01B52032025-01-30 · 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 Software Engineer, proposed to continue developing thermal management controls and software for battery electric vehicles for his employer, which he claimed would advance EV adoption, climate goals, and energy independence.
Field: software engineering / battery electric vehicle thermal management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not shown the Beneficiary's specific projects as a Software Engineer stand to impact these areas to an extent that his proposed work holds national importance.”
“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint such as the Petitioner, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's 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”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's specific proposed work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits ... would reach the level of substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would be impractical either for the company to provide a job offer or to obtain a labor certification”
“this information is insufficient to show that the national interest is better served by a waiver of the job offer and thus the labor certification requirement”
“The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
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, to show ... national importance”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or his assigned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“The evidence does not indicate ... that he is an inventor of the Petitioner's patented technologies or that he publishes or presents technological research.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the evidence in the aggregate is not sufficient to show that a national interest waiver outweighs the benefits inherent to the labor certification process”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
2,501coded 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
The AAO expressly treats both the failed first and third prongs as independent, alternate bases for dismissal, a dual-dispositive structure. It also distinguishes between field/industry importance and the specific endeavor's importance, rejecting expert letters that conflated the two.
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
- 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