The Petitioner sought to work as a researcher developing contactless, long-range wireless charging technology for smartphones using resonance frequencies, with plans to patent and present the technology at industry conferences.

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, licensees, and their customers”

“The Petitioner's references speculate about how the Petitioner's long-distance wireless charging technology may affect American consumers, emergency personnel, and soldiers in battlefield”

“However, the letters do not offer sufficient information or evidence to support the proposed endeavor's impact rising to the level of national importance.”

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

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

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's discussion of the SCOPS decision's favorable findings on prongs 2 and 3 was somewhat internally inconsistent in phrasing, but the decision turned entirely on prong 1 national importance, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved as unnecessary to reach.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of V-K-
• 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