The Petitioner proposed to design, optimize, and scale standardized APIs and cloud-based integration frameworks enabling independent U.S. businesses to securely connect their systems to large-scale business-messaging networks. He sought to drive widespread adoption of these tools across diverse sectors beyond his current employer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner would pursue the endeavor independently outside the scope of his current role”

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

“the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clients to affect the regional or national economy more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between his proposed endeavor's activities and any demonstratable substantial economic activities.”

“aside from describing the Petitioner's work projects as an employee at [redacted] the authors do not attest to the endeavor's future impact with persuasive and concrete details.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “aside from describing the Petitioner's work projects as an employee at [redacted] the authors do not attest to the endeavor's future impact with persuasive and concrete details.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide any 'agreements or contracts' or other corroborating documents showing that the adoption or licensing of a technology is directly attributable to the Petitioner.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently explain or provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that it is his own specific endeavor that has had, or is likely to have impact that will rise to the level of national importance.”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO explicitly compared the Petitioner's evidence unfavorably to the Dhanasar petitioner's hypersonic propulsion research, noting the absence of expert letters from government entities or industry bodies detailing national-level interest in the specific endeavor. The AAO also noted an internal inconsistency in the Petitioner's appellate arguments: he simultaneously claimed SCOPS disregarded evidence of widespread technology adoption and that SCOPS erred by requiring formal third-party collaboration agreements. SCOPS had conceded substantial merit at the RFE stage, so only national importance (and prongs 2 and 3) were contested on appeal; the AAO found prong 1 dispositive and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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