The Petitioner sought to develop and improve manufacturing processes using recycled materials, particularly composites, to enable flexible production of both mass-produced and custom architectural products in the United States.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“we agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second Dhanasar prong”

“the record does not contain other documentary evidence to support these claims.”

“it does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nor describe his progress toward achieving it.”

“the record does not sufficiently establish the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.”

“The Petitioner's name does not appear to be present in any of the HGTV promotional materials, nor are any of the Petitioner's claimed advancements or technologies featured”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “it does not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nor describe his progress toward achieving it.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited
• media · discounted

  “the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that any of the Petitioner's claimed manufacturing advancements or processes were the reason that his employer was contracted”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the record does not clearly define the relationship between... there is no other documentary evidence... such as a licensing agreement”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO cites Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 (5th Cir. 2023) in a footnote to underscore that NIW adjudication is discretionary, joining several circuits. The AAO expressly declines to reach prongs 1 and 3 after finding prong 2 dispositive, invoking INS v. Bagamasbad to avoid advisory findings.

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

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