dismissedAPR252025_01B52032025-04-25 · appeal
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, a data scientist employed at an online job search and social platform company, proposed to continue advancing algorithms, optimizing resource distribution, and integrating AI features to improve job search and job matching for blue-collar workers.
Field: data science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate his work as a data scientist with his current company would extend beyond his current company's interests and specific clientele in a manner that has national or global impact”
“the vice president described the resulting benefits to the company rather than any broader impact, saying that completion of the projects "brought remarkable benefits to [his current employer]"”
“the letter only generally concludes that the Petitioner's "contributions align with national interests by enhancing workforce development and economic stability," rather than specifically addressing”
“the generalized conclusions in his statement and the letters are insufficient to demonstrate that continuing his employment with his company would have substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“lack sufficient probative detail and instead provide only general assertions regarding the contributions”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor rather than whether his proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“do not address the specific endeavor or the services the Petitioner would provide through his company as part of his endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“These decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications.”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 agreed with SCOPS that the endeavor had substantial merit but not national importance, treating these as severable sub-components of prong 1. AAO also declined to address prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the proposition 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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
- Flores v. Garland
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