The Petitioner proposed to serve as a chief executive officer and senior technology executive leading digital transformation, Zero Trust cybersecurity implementation, Industry 4.0 adoption, and critical infrastructure resiliency programs for U.S. manufacturing, energy, and critical infrastructure sectors.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor appears to be directly related to his current employment. However, the record does not demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor beyond his employer.”

“he has not provided projections for I I or forecasts based on objective evidence to demonstrate the company's potential economic impacts or job creation.”

“occupational shortages do not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“the Petitioner mainly relies on the importance of the field to demonstrate the potential significance of his endeavor, rather than any prospective positive impact resulting from the endeavor itself.”

“That statement, however, is not corroborated by evidence in the record, such as documentation showing citations or evidence of which Fortune 500 companies have utilized the Petitioner's work product.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “The record does not indicate that the Petitioner has a master's degree; therefore, we withdraw this finding.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “This plan, however, does not clarify how the Petitioner, through his employer, will have an impact of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “this material does not demonstrate how his work will have a broader impact on cybersecurity in the manufacturing industry.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “it is not clear how his provision of services to clients such as these demonstrates greater implications for his services across the manufacturing industry.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “That statement, however, is not corroborated by evidence in the record, such as documentation showing citations.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO corrected SCOPS's erroneous factual finding that the Petitioner held a master's degree, withdrawing it, but reserved the threshold EB-2 classification question (bachelor's plus experience or exceptional ability) as unnecessary given the dispositive Dhanasar prong-one denial; SCOPS had actually found substantial merit and well-positioned prongs satisfied, but AAO reached only national importance.

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.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(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