dismissedNOV202024_03B52032024-11-20 · appeal · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, a battery test/senior battery engineer at F-E-, Inc., proposed to develop and optimize materials such as liquid fluorinated electrolytes for lithium metal batteries and soft electronics to improve energy density, safety, and stability, aiming to advance electric transportation and clean energy storage.

Field: battery/materials engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence indicated the potential prospective impact of the petitioner's proposed activities constituting the endeavor is mainly to the petitioner's employer and its customers”

“The generalized information does not discuss how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have "national or even global implications within a particular field”

“the Petitioner has not identified the specific nature of his proposed future activities so that we might determine the endeavor's possible impact”

“the authors demonstrate little knowledge concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“Simply obtaining employment or conducting research in a worthy field or industry, such as materials engineering, does not warrant a national interest waiver”

“The evidence does not show that the Petitioner's activities performed during his continued research while continuing his employment at F-E-, Inc. would have economic impacts beyond the clients and customers served by his employer”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors demonstrate little knowledge concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“this past research acclaim does not in itself establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“they are of little probative value in this matter as they do not discuss the impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these statements... address aspects of the second Dhanasar prong but do not address how the proposed endeavor... has broader implications”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,589coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Petitioner argued Director committed an abuse of discretion by failing to consider all evidence, citing a district court case (Buletini v. INS); AAO rejected this, noting district court decisions are non-binding and citing multiple circuit court cases on the presumption that agencies review the full record without needing to address every piece of evidence.

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. 103.3
Buletini v. INS
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer