A civil engineer proposed to continue working in infrastructure and civil construction for public, commercial, and residential buildings in the U.S., providing engineering services, training, and consulting to private companies and public institutions.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Rather than establishing that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance, we note that most of these objectives simply describe the typical occupational duties of a civil engineer.”

“We recognize the importance of the civil engineering and construction industries; however, merely working in the civil engineering and construction fields is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“We are not persuaded by the claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in his industry”

“The record as constituted contains insufficient evidence demonstrating any projected economic or environmental impacts specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“Instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor having a prospective impact in the field of construction, the opinion focuses on the importance of the construction industry”

“Here, the Petitioner has shown the former, but not the latter.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “the actual articles and reports were not submitted in support of the petition”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO noted the expert opinion letter's author was from an institution redacted in text; the decision explicitly distinguishes Dhanasar's own facts (engineer by occupation but specific R&D/teaching endeavor found not nationally important) as a cautionary analogy against conflating field importance with endeavor importance.

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 L-A-C-

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