The Beneficiary, a Software Developer II, proposed to use AI and advanced computing/cloud techniques to build real-time marketing data-processing platforms for his employer's e-commerce and gaming-streaming platform.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Director determined that the endeavor's impact would 'sufficiently extend beyond [the Petitioner] and its clients.'”

“the professor focuses on the Petitioner's industry, its collective workforce of software engineers, and the field of software engineering rather than focusing on the Beneficiary's specific endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on this recommendation letter to demonstrate that the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national importance, rather than only impacting his current employer”

“simply pursuing an endeavor in a STEM field does not automatically demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver”

“the Beneficiary does not intend to advance STEM technologies and research, but rather seeks continued employment as a software engineer for the Petitioner”

“the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's individual employment with its organization would affect software engineering employment levels or the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the author did not discuss the Beneficiary's proposed future endeavor, but instead primarily focused on his past work experience”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the professor's advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not address how this report demonstrates the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor other than that his endeavor is in a STEM field”

  AAO decision text
• other · credited

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
• 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
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO credited substantial merit (STEM/CET relevance) but found national importance lacking because the endeavor primarily benefited the employer; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure.

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
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• 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