The Beneficiary, a software verification and validation (V&V) engineer at an automotive parts manufacturer, sought to continue quality assurance and validation of software for electronic control units and related EV subsystems, including charge and transmission controller technology.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Benefits that are isolated to a single institution or locality in the United States might be so attenuated at the national level as to preclude a finding that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“the record does not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary's duties as a software V&V engineer would impact the automative and EV car industry more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the letter does not sufficiently detail how the Beneficiary's work would have a broader impact on EV sales or safety standards within the automotive industry as a whole.”

“the issue here is not whether software development in the automotive industry, as a whole, is nationally important.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letter does not sufficiently detail how the Beneficiary's work would have a broader impact on EV sales or safety standards within the automotive industry as a whole”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “it does not explain the endeavor's broader impact on the national economy or automotive industry, more broadly”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO explicitly invoked USCIS STEM-specific guidance (Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)) to assess whether the endeavor advanced STEM technologies broadly, but found the Petitioner's evidence insufficient even under that framework.

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
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
• 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