Proposed endeavor too vague

What this objection usually means

Officers need to know exactly what the person will do in the U.S.: which projects, which goals, in what setting. A general occupation ("engineer", "researcher", "consultant") is not an endeavor.

What has tended to answer it

A concrete endeavor statement naming the work, methods, intended outputs, setting and timeline, used identically across the petition, letters and statement.

General patterns drawn from past decisions, not legal advice for your case. Ask a licensed immigration attorney how this applies to you.

The rule

“The term “endeavor” is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation.”

USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 5(D)(3) (first prong)

Quoted from the USCIS Policy Manual current as of Sept 23, 2026. Check the online manual before filing.

Where it sank the appeal

Recent dismissed appeals raising this objection

• Dismissed2026-08-20Engineering

  More specifically, users observed that the record does not address how the proposed endeavor would affect the field of workforce training. users also explained that the copies of publications that provide generalized information about workforce training do not discuss the Petitioner and the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake and, thus, they do not show how the proposed endeavor may have national importance. users further noted that, although the letters of recommendation discuss the Petitioner's qualifications and experience, they do not inform how the specific endeavor he proposes to …

  Read decision AUG202026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-20Business & finance

  It also broadly claims the Petitioner's endeavor will foster "advancements that benefit industries such as automotive retail, fintech, and other, while promoting ethical standards that align with national priorities in innovation and financial inclusion."

  Read decision AUG202026_02B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-19Computing, AI & data

  While the Petitioner claims that these articles support the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign 4 USCIS' decision stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated "the Beneficiary's individual work towards the development and deployment of AI and ML-driven fraud detection frameworks would have an impact at a level ofnational imp01tance." 4

  Read decision AUG192026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-18Engineering

  Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.

  Read decision AUG182026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-13Computing, AI & data

  Similarly, while the Petitioner referenced general economic impacts relating to cybersecurity to demonstrate the importance of her proposed endeavor, she has not elaborated on how her intention to provide cloud consultancy services would result in benefits to the regional or national economy that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Matter ofDhanasar.

  Read decision AUG132026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-08-13Education

  In a request for evidence, USCIS acknowledged the Petitioner's initial evidence but stated that the Petitioner had not established the broader impact of the proposed endeavor.

  Read decision AUG132026_02B5203

Where the petitioner still won or got a remand

Sustained or remanded decisions where this issue was discussed: read them to see what answered it

• Remanded2026-06-04Engineering

  The Petitioner argues on appeal that users' decision "relied on generalized statements that [his] proposed endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance" without addressing the specific evidence he submitted for Dhanasar's first prong.

  Read decision JUN042026_01B5203
• Remanded2026-01-20Education

  Although SCOPS generally listed some of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner, its decision did not identify her specific proposed endeavor, include an analysis of the documentation submitted, or provide an explanation of why the evidence was determined to be deficient.

  Read decision JAN202026_03B5203
• Remanded2025-12-18Biomedical & life sciences

  Instead, they broadly found that the record did not support the Petitioner's claims to establish his endeavor's national importance and provided little analysis explaining how they reached their conclusions.

  Read decision DEC182025_05B5203
• Remanded2025-12-02Computing, AI & data

  The Petitioner has established the broader implications of his proposed endeavor, and thereby shown that endeavor to have national importance.

  Read decision DEC022025_01B5203
• Remanded2025-10-02Biomedical & life sciences

  We disagree, however, with SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner had not established the broader impact necessary to show the national importance of the proposed endeavor.

  Read decision OCT022025_02B5203
• Remanded2025-09-29Energy, environment & agriculture

  Although SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, it did not specifically address the Petitioner's evidence or the factors outlined in Dhanasar.

  Read decision SEP292025_02B5203