The Petitioner, a Software Engineer III, proposed to advance data processing, data governance modeling, and AI-powered analytics, including developing an open-source library of interactive web components for data visualization and analysis.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“his services may benefit his employer, he did not show that his proposed work stands to impact the field more broadly”

“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”

“The letters from S-R-, J-F-K-, I-T-, L-T-, C-M-, J-P, and A-D- do not contain sufficient infonnation and explanation”

“As this plan materialized after the filing of the petition, and therefore would not establish his eligibility at the time of filing”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”

“he has not shown that his specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his proposed projects and their users to impact his field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not contain sufficient infonnation and explanation ... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “As this plan materialized after the filing of the petition, and therefore would not establish his eligibility at the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact”

  AAO decision text
• degree · ignored

  “a Petitioner's education, however, is a factor considered under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• 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

Notable

AAO noted the Petitioner's RFE-stage declaration introduced a new project not clearly described in the initial filing, and treated the later-developed project plan as post-filing evidence insufficient to establish eligibility at time of filing (citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi).

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak

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