dismissedJUN282024_01B52032024-06-28 · appeal · Texas 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 Petitioner, a materials engineer, proposed to conduct materials synthesis and characterization, electrochemical testing, and mathematical modeling to develop energy devices and new materials for renewable energy conversion.
Field: materials engineering / energy storage and conversion · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work is not the relevant question for determining whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor”
“The Petitioner's self-described "laboratory activities" appear to benefit whichever company that employs or may employ the Petitioner, and the apparent customers of the Petitioner's employer(s).”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner, as a single researcher working for-presumably-one employer at a time may demonstrate "significant potential to employ U.S. workers"”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“opinion letters that reiterate the Petitioner's qualifications, prior research she has conducted, and generalized information regarding energy consumption and research”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish how ... any other 'laboratory activities' the Petitioner may perform, may extend beyond her employer(s)”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“without more does not provide sufficient context regarding whether the endeavor has the potential to create a significant impact”
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
2,589coded 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
AAO relied on Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) to characterize NIW adjudication as discretionary; also declined to reach substantial merit, prong 2, or prong 3, citing Bagamashad and Matter of L-A-C- for not making advisory findings.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl