The Petitioner, a project execution area supervisor (later promoted to a lead role) in an engineering/industrial field, sought to continue his employer-based technical project work in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, as opposed to the industry as a whole or his employer, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its projects to impact the industry more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner references a number of internal "technical documents" he authored, but fails to establish their importance.”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous projects are considerations under the second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

  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

Notable

Petitioner repeatedly argued that his 'expertise and impact EXCEEDS that of [Dr.] Dhanasar,' directly comparing himself to the named petitioner in the controlling precedent decision; the AAO clarified that such comparisons of personal expertise belong under prong two, not prong one, and rejected the comparison on the merits.

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.

• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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