NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR022025_03B52032025-04-02 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Beneficiary, a product manager, proposed to use advanced cloud services, machine learning, and AI technologies to optimize user experience for his employer's gaming/entertainment platform.

Field: product management (cloud services, ML, AI for gaming/entertainment platform) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”
“neither the memorandum, the letters, or the remaining record provide any financial analysis or details supporting how the specific functions and tasks carried out by the Beneficiary in his proposed endeavor affect the Petitioner's revenue”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not support that it has national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “benefits to a specific employer alone... are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “the record does not describe how the proposed endeavor... would be shared... to have national or even global implications”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important”
    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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO cites USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03 (Jan. 15, 2025) as guidance on national importance factors, reflecting a post-decision policy update rather than a precedent case. The AAO declines to reach prong 3 arguments, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.

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 E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer