The petitioner, a corporate R&D vice president, proposed to research and develop long-range, contactless wireless charging technology for smartphones using resonance frequencies, working at a company that designs mobile device components.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient information or evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor offers benefits that extend beyond his employer”

“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient information or evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor has "substantial positive economic effects" to have national importance”

“merely working in an important STEM field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“None of these letters sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's planned research activities rise to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “merely working in an important STEM field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

  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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

AAO agreed with SCOPS that prongs two and three (well positioned; balance of benefit) were satisfied, deciding the case solely on prong one's national-importance element; cited Flores v. Garland for the discretionary nature of NIW determinations and Bagamasbad/Matter of L-A-C- to justify not reaching the remaining prongs.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of V-K-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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