The Petitioner, a senior electrical engineer at a device company, proposed to continue researching, designing, and developing RFID/wireless-enabled and energy-harvesting systems for use in disposable device accessories on behalf of her employer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not persuasively established the national importance of the proposed endea var.”

“broad applications alone do not establish that any benefit or positive impact will accrue in such a manner so as to satisfy the national importance element”

“it does not follow that simply because the Petitioner works for a device company, that contributions made specifically to that employer will generate national level impact.”

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

“Unsubstantiated general statements such as this add little evidentiary value to this matter.”

“the record does not demonstrate any potential economic benefit to the nation.”

“At the time the petition was initially filed, a 2014 and a 2016 article each had one citation.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “Unsubstantiated general statements such as this add little evidentiary value to this matter.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “this alone is insufficient to substantiate a claim of significant contributions to the field.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “broad applications alone do not establish that any benefit or positive impact will accrue in such a manner so as to satisfy the national importance element”

  AAO decision text
• patents · ignored

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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

AAO explicitly withdrew the Director's finding on 'substantial merit' after reviewing appellate articles, but still found national importance unestablished, illustrating that the two sub-elements of prong 1 are analyzed separately. AAO also expressly corrected counsel for conflating prong 1 (endeavor's national importance) with prong 2 (petitioner's qualifications), citing Dhanasar's language that prong 2 'shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.'

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.

• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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