The Petitioner, an architect and program manager, proposed an endeavor connected to the construction industry (including green/sustainable construction), but did not clearly specify the concrete form his work would take (e.g., an online marketplace, employment at a firm, or a consulting role).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The nebulous nature of the Petitioner's employment prohibits USCIS from determining the broader implications and impact of the proposed endeavor”

“the record/RFE response has not offered sufficient specific information regarding the expected contributions from the proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner's accomplishments relate to the results he achieved on specific projects or for specific employers/clients but are not indicative of broader implications to the field.”

“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry, which the articles and reports demonstrate, as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner's accomplishments relate to the results he achieved on specific projects or for specific employers/clients but are not indicative of broader implications to the field.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry...as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

Notable

The AAO expressly adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano while purporting to give 'individualized consideration,' and in a footnote declines to reach remaining Dhanasar prongs because the prong 1 finding is dispositive. The AAO also rejects the Petitioner's argument that the Director applied a higher (different-classification) evidentiary standard and rejects a Buletini-based abuse-of-discretion claim regarding failure to address each piece of evidence individually.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• 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