NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR222026_03B52032026-04-22 · appeal · SCOPS 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 Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearable and IoT devices, with a focus on improved interaction, user experience, and privacy protection, intending to pursue this work as a research scientist at a leading technology company.

Field: electrical and computer engineering / sensor data processing and machine learning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a master of science degree in electrical and computer engineering.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“we conclude that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”
“we withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner did not establish the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and conclude that the Petitioner has established this requirement.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record lacks sufficient evidence relating to the Petitioner's progress in pursuing such a position and lacks specificity regarding whether such a position would sufficiently enable the Petitioner to pursue his endeavor.”
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of communications demonstrating interest from prospective employers, evidence regarding potential offers, or details regarding what duties a potential position would entail.”
“the record lacks evidence to demonstrate other types of interest, such as interest from potential customers, users, investors, employers, or other relevant entities”
“they are not sufficient to overcome the lack of evidence to demonstrate a model or plan for future activities, the lack of specifics regarding the capacity in which he would be able to pursue his proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“The record does not contain sufficient evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers.”
“even if the first two prongs had been met, the petition could not have been approved because the record does not satisfy the third prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · credited
  • citations publications · credited
  • recommendation letter · credited
  • degree · credited
  • other · discounted
    “the record lacks sufficient evidence relating to the Petitioner's progress in pursuing such a position and lacks specificity”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
  • Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
  • U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
1,312coded 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

Unusually, the AAO reversed SCOPS on both prong 1 (finding national importance established) and prong 2 (finding the petitioner NOT well-positioned, contrary to SCOPS' conclusion), then independently analyzed and failed prong 3 even though prong 2 was already dispositive. The AAO explicitly noted the absence of a Ph.D. as a negative factor under prong 2 and drew a contrast with the Dhanasar petitioner who was already employed and conducting research. The redacted employer name appears to be Apple based on contextual clues in the decision text.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner lacked evidence of concrete progress, employer interest, or a specific plan showing how intended future employment would enable the endeavor, failing prong 2 and consequently prong 3.

Transferable lesson

Substantiate a concrete plan with employer communications, offers, or specific pursuit steps—credentials and citations alone don't show you're positioned to execute the endeavor.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · field_advancement · public_health

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer