Petitioner, a manufacturing/mechanical engineering manager, sought to continue working in his field in the U.S. (with ambiguous claims about becoming an independent business owner in mechanical and electrical engineering).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the plan does not include any information that suggests he intends to run his own manufacturing engineering firm in the United States”

“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or his industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“this material does not focus on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor, but instead focuses on the economic and societal contributions of his industry to the nation as a whole”

“The fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “his personal plan does not outline or discuss plans to operate a business”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not focus on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor, but instead focuses on the economic and societal contributions of his industry”

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

Notable

AAO noted inconsistencies in counsel's brief, including misattributing the Petitioner's name and mischaracterizing the Director's prong-two finding, questioning the accuracy of counsel's assertions on appeal and whether information was correctly attributed to this Petitioner. AAO also corrected the record by finding the Petitioner met the advanced-degree threshold despite the Director never addressing it, but found this non-dispositive.

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
• Matter of Ho
• 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