The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT Specialist/Solution Architect (a synonym he used for computer software developer), contributing to the software development sector without specifying particular projects or employer commitments.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he did not specify the type of solution he proposes to architect or for whom”

“the [Petitioner's] statements regarding his proposed endeavor are "vague with respect to his actual employment plans in the United States.”

“he did not elaborate on what the proposed endeavor would contribute, how it would do so, the consequences of the contribution”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“Without more information regarding what software the Petitioner would develop and for whom he would develop it, the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have "national or even global implications”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “are generic in nature and do not reference the [Petitioner], his prospective employer, or the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “the Petitioner's reliance on his academic history as applied to the first Dhanasar prong is misplaced”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “the Petitioner did not state prior to the decision or on appeal that his proposed endeavor would entail working for that employer”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

Notable

AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, and even declined to opine on substantial merit (only national importance) within prong 1, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not resolve unnecessary issues. The decision also clarifies that STEM/CET designation and academic credentials are immaterial to the national importance analysis under prong 1, being instead relevant to prong 2.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-

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