The Petitioner, a civil/geotechnical engineer, proposed to work as a senior geotechnical engineer for a U.S. company, developing approaches to analyze the performance of geotechnical structures to improve infrastructure safety and manage risk while also engaging in related research.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry on national or global level beyond his proposed employer”

“we evaluate whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has broader national significance, rather than the importance of his profession or industry in which he proposes to engage”

“he does not specify, and the record lacks any independent evidence as to, how his proposed work with the prospective company otherwise stands to impact U.S. economy or benefit economically depressed areas”

“The purpose of the national interest waiver thus is not to facilitate a suitable individual's U.S. job search where there may be job opportunities in the field that may also have national significance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “his past research and publication work primarily relate to whether he is well positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, rather than its first prong”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the extent to which he contributed to the team projects on which the other co-authored articles were based remains unclear”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record lacks detail and objective evidence as to how or to what extent his proposed research and development ... would have substantial positive economic or societal benefits”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “We thus decline to consider the new appeal document.”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “he did not provide any detail or evidence on the grants he claims his past research received”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (concluding merit was established) but still found national importance unmet, dismissing solely on prong 1's national importance sub-element. AAO also declined to consider a White House budget Fact Sheet submitted for the first time on appeal, citing 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11) and Matter of Soriano.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

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