The Petitioner, an electrical engineer with expertise in electromagnetic compatibility/interference testing, proposed to work in the U.S. aviation industry as an electromagnetic environmental effects engineer, performing testing and developing technologies such as lightning protection systems for aircraft.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“he does not explain how the individual work he may perform, like performing EMC/EMI testing and analysis, HIRF testing, and developing lighting protection solutions for his employers will meaningfully impact the field at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“he has not shown how his individual contribution would result in broader implications to the field.”

“the Petitioner has not provided projected employment numbers and revenue growth contributable to his specific endeavor to establish how his endeavor will result in substantial economic benefits”

“Dr. A-A- did not provide explain how these benefits and his work would broadly impact the field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “much of the content of the expert opinion letters and the recommendation letters lack probative value with respect to the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• patents · discounted

  “a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “he does not explain how the individual work he may perform...will meaningfully impact the field at a level commensurate with national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor will foster progress in STEM technologies or result in broader implications to his field”

  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

Notable

AAO noted the Petitioner's appeal brief presented only 'general disagreement' with the Director's decision without identifying specific errors, which the AAO stated was 'alone... grounds for dismissal,' though it nevertheless proceeded to a full de novo merits analysis of prong 1.

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 Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of L-A-C-

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