The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained transportation engineer, proposed to work with an American traffic engineering firm on large-scale transportation and construction projects, including developing strategic partnerships and pursuing opportunities in Latin American markets.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the petitioner would be limited to serving the clientele of an engineering company”

“A claimed shortage of transportation engineers does not give national importance to the proposed endeavor of one such engineer.”

“At issue here is not the intrinsic importance of transportation engineering, but rather the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“It is not sufficient to assert an intention to work in a city with a large and complicated transportation system”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these letters have less weight than evidence of formal recognition such as certificates and other documentation that exists independently of the petition”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “An uncorroborated claim has no weight as evidence and cannot satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof.”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “The mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award ... is not by itself considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not explain and demonstrate how the petitioner['s] proposed endeavor will extend to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “These materials addressed the substantial merit aspect but did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular.”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO found the Petitioner failed both the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) and Dhanasar prong 1, but dismissed solely on prong 1 as dispositive while also flagging the classification failure for any future filing; notable discrepancy where Petitioner submitted a new resume on NOID response claiming overlapping employment inconsistent with his original resume, raising credibility concerns under Matter of Ho.

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. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
• Visinscaia v. Beers

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