The petitioner, a software/mechanical engineer working full-time developing motion-planning control algorithms for a humanoid robot, proposed to continue researching and developing model-based control algorithms for legged robots to advance robotics applications and reduce human involvement in dangerous tasks.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

“the record contains limited information regarding what the proposed endeavor will actually entail, what it will produce, when it will produce those unspecified results”

“the record does not establish how that work may have broader implications within the field of mechanical engineering or any other field rather than benefitting merely his employer”

“none of the publications...address...how the specific endeavor may have national or even global implications within the field of mechanical engineering or any other field, substantial positive economic effects”

“the relevant question for determining national importance is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession implicated by a proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “abnormal, faded, fuzzy, or pixelated signatures...casts doubt on whether the letters express the personal knowledge and opinions of the purported authors”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the letters that provide generalized information bear minimal probative value for determining the issue of whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not establish what the Petitioner actually contributes to these research projects...and other details to substantiate this claimed aspect”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO flagged multiple support letters as bearing apparently non-handwritten (faded/pixelated/word-processed) signatures under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(a)(2), casting doubt on their authenticity and reliability—an unusual evidentiary-integrity finding beyond typical conclusory-letter critiques. AAO also rejected petitioner's abuse-of-discretion argument that SCOPS imposed a novel requirement, finding the argument mischaracterized SCOPS' reasoning.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• 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