The Petitioner, a telecommunications engineer and electronics specialist, proposed to work as an engineer for large companies such as SpaceX and Boeing, developing broadband networks and producing chips, microchips, and electronic devices.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Director determined that merely working in an important field or showing that the proposed endeavor is related to STEM is not sufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor itself has national importance”

“the Petitioner does not explain how his individual work will effectively address these shortages or trigger an impact at the national importance level”

“the Petitioner has not elaborated on the types of projects he would undertake in his endeavor and thus we cannot conclude that his work would have national implications”

“the record lacks evidence that any projected U.S. economic impact would be attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“the letter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “Evidence of the Petitioner's prior successes...do not demonstrate the national importance of that endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “merely working in an important field or showing that the proposed endeavor is related to STEM is not sufficient”

  AAO decision text

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

Notable

AAO expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's decision on prong 1 (Matter of Burbano practice) while also providing its own independent analysis; job offer letters submitted by Petitioner were for different, lower-level positions (e.g., telecommunications equipment installer/repairer reporting to a telecommunications engineer), undermining the claimed endeavor's coherence.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Chen v. INS
• 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