The Petitioner, an electrical engineer and assistant project manager, proposed to bring his technical knowledge of circuit panel design to numerous utility companies around the country, with past work involving critical infrastructure projects in countries such as Venezuela and Ghana.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not provide sufficient information and objective evidence to establish how his proposed endeavor of being employed as an electrical engineer and a project manager would "extend beyond his employer and its customers to impact the field of energy systems maintenance and design or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance."”

“the Petitioner does not address how this report demonstrates national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor other than that his endeavor is in STEM field.”

“even though the Petitioner's endeavor falls within a STEM field, this does not automatically show eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not address how this report demonstrates national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor other than that his endeavor is in STEM field”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “our prior decision correctly evaluated the Petitioner's past experience and skills as factors to be considered in the second prong”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Instead, the Petitioner reiterates general arguments regarding his endeavor's national importance that were previously considered and dismissed on appeal.”

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

Notable

AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 on the underlying appeal (citing Bagamasbad/L-A-C- for not deciding unnecessary issues), and on this combined motion rejected Petitioner's argument that AAO was required to address all three Dhanasar prongs; also rejected new evidence (STEM critical technologies list) as merely showing field-level importance rather than endeavor-specific importance, and rejected reliance on a new, seemingly different current job (bank IT project manager) as unrelated to the originally proposed endeavor.

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. 103.5
• 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