dismissedMAY182026_02B52032026-05-18 · combined

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, sought to advance development of speed modification and control systems for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and automated driving systems (ADS), pursued through his employment at an automotive company.

Field: mechanical engineering / automotive ADAS-ADS systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not provide adequate corroborating evidence demonstrating that the proposed endeavor would offer broad and measurable implications”

“the recommendation letters from did not sufficiently explain how the impact from the Petitioner's projects would extend beyond the company and its clients to influence the field of endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not established that the impact of his invention will extend beyond his employer and the proprietors of vehicles”

“the record lacks evidence that savings from the above-listed costs are attributable to or more importantly that they are attributable to the proposed endeavor”

“he has not established that his proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly impact the United States or the transportation industry on a scale that is commensurate with having national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“did not sufficiently explain how the impact from the Petitioner's projects would extend beyond the company and its clients”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the membership materialized approximately 10 months after the petition was filed does not support the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the promotional material does not offer a new fact showing the Petitioner's eligibility”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record lacks evidence that savings from the above-listed costs are attributable to ... the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
patents · discounted
“he has not established that he, rather than his employer, owns the intellectual property he has invented”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO emphasized that evidence arising after the filing date (SAE task force membership, promotional material) cannot establish eligibility under Matter of Katigbak, and separately found the Petitioner failed to establish personal (rather than employer) ownership of a patent cited as evidence of impact.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Coelho
Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer