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 Petitioner proposed to advance the integration of AI and other exponential technologies—including machine learning, quantum computing, and blockchain—within healthcare and other industries, and to design large-scale distributed LLM inference server features at a new employer (Modular).
Field: computer science and engineering / artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not offer a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated under Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.”
“The Petitioner's broad, general claims do not satisfy the requirement of a specific proposed endeavor pursuant to Dhanasar.”
“simply intending to continue his work or generally indicating in broad terms that he will develop AI technology or will be utilizing various models is not sufficient”
“the Petitioner relies on his past work without specifically explaining what his future work will entail.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“mainly discussed the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments ... and briefly mentioned that he will continue to develop AI-related technology without sufficiently expanding on his prospective work.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner relies on his past work without specifically explaining what his future work will entail.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“a petitioner must establish all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied at the time filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1).”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' favorable determinations on prong 1 (substantial merit) and prong 2, finding that without a specific proposed endeavor no analysis of any prong is possible. The decision is notable for explicitly overturning a service-center finding that had credited prongs 1 and 2, and for rejecting newly submitted employer and recommendation letters on RFE response as untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The adjudicating entity is listed as SCOPS rather than a named service center.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to articulate a specific proposed endeavor; vague references to 'data-driven AI tools' and 'cutting-edge platforms' without concrete detail precluded any prong-one analysis.
Define the endeavor with concrete specifics (what will be built, deployed, or solved) rather than broad aspirational language about continuing AI work.
vague
critical_emerging_tech · economic_growth_generic · public_health
person_focused
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