A manufacturing/industrial engineer employed by a semiconductor-industry company proposed to develop and manufacture electronic and electro-mechanical products used for pre-silicon emulation and prototyping of advanced integrated circuits, while helping onshore domestic manufacturing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“However, the Petitioner provided little detail on how the Petitioner's specific work for his employer "set a new standard for the industry" or give the United States a "leg up on foreign competition."”

“Benefits to a specific company alone, even a company with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”

“Again, it is not the overall work of the Petitioner's employer that demonstrates national importance, but the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

“The Petitioner provides insufficient evidence to substantiate that his work with one employer would have an impact on many major industries and societal and government issues.”

“general alignment with, or a mere potential contribution, to matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the vice president does not clarify the Petitioner's specific contributions to these product lines or how these product lines are innovative”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “there is no indication how this funding applies specifically to the Petitioner's work with the company”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain with specificity what portions of his work were novel, led his company to commercialize nationally”

  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
• 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

The Petitioner argued USCIS made a factual error by referencing a prior employer/role rather than his current full-time position; the AAO did not resolve this dispute but nonetheless found the national-importance evidence insufficient regardless. The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three, finding prong one dispositive, and used a lengthy comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic-propulsion research to illustrate the specificity and government-funding nexus the Petitioner's record lacked.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• 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