dismissedAPR252025_02B52032025-04-25 · 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 machine learning engineer at a social media company, proposed to develop machine learning and deep learning algorithms for online recommender systems to improve user engagement on social media and online shopping platforms.
Field: machine learning / artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner must show how the functions and tasks carried out by him coalesce into a nationally important endeavor.”
“the Petitioner cannot rely upon the national reach ofl customer base orl botential influence on other social media companies”
“the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie”
“the record does not contain sufficient detailed evidence establishing that his plan to develop cutting-edge ML algorithms has the potential to be adopted by others operating in the field or industry.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient detailed evidence establishing that his plan to develop cutting-edge ML algorithms has the potential to be adopted by others operating in the field or industry”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
271coded 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
The Petitioner cited a prior non-precedent AAO decision to argue that first-prong analysis is not limited by occupation at filing; the AAO acknowledged the argument but found it unpersuasive on the merits and noted the decision was non-binding. Employer name appears redacted throughout (apparent reference to a major social media company).
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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