NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR072025_07B52032025-04-07 · 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 proposed to continue his employment as a staff machine learning engineer for a gaming and streaming company, designing and implementing AI/ML models and cybersecurity protections for child safety, content safety, and platform safety.

Field: machine learning / AI / cybersecurity engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director's finding that the Beneficiary qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional was undisputed and affirmed by the AAO.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Work that benefits a specific employer, even an employer with a national or global footprint or one that is among the leaders in its industry, is not sufficient to establish that any given employee's specific endeavor has national importance”
“merely working in a STEM field, or in an occupation in which there is a national shortage of workers, is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the author primarily discusses the Beneficiary's work in terms of what he contributes to advancing the Petitioner's own technologies, and attributes the national importance of the Beneficiary's work to the Petitioner”
“the record does not articulate or document what these "new standards" are or include evidence that such standards have been or will be disseminated for use by other companies”
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's employment alone would have any projected economic impact or create jobs at a level indicative of national importance”
“the issue is not whether AI and machine learning technologies, the field of cybersecurity, or the gaming and digital entertainment industries are areas of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “attributes the national importance of the Beneficiary's work to the Petitioner, rather than to the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “appear unrelated to the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor to design and implement AI and ML-based cybersecurity protections”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's employment with the Petitioner would have the broader impacts required”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's employment alone would have any projected economic impact”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • 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 noted the Director's decision contained internally contradictory findings on substantial merit (stating on the same page both that merit was not established and that it was established), and the AAO resolved this in the Petitioner's favor on the substantial merit sub-issue, but still found national importance lacking.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of E-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer