dismissedAPR302025_04B52032025-04-30 · 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 software engineer, proposed to create an open-source communication/video-conferencing platform with AI-assisted scripted consultations, offering secure video conferencing, multi-device compatibility, and integration with tools like Google Calendar, Outlook, PayPal, and other scheduling/billing services.
Field: software engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“SCOPS noted that the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the Petitioner would work, rather it is whether the specific proposed endeavor has national importance.”
“SCOPS mentioned that the Petitioner did not provide evidence of how the proposed endeavor would address significant challenges, advance critical technologies, or contribute to the U.S. economy”
“The record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective endeavor's potential prospective impact, including broader implications, or national or global implications”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he makes the same and similar arguments as made previously”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,589coded 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 adopts and affirms the SCOPS decision in full rather than conducting independent analysis, citing Matter of Burbano and Giday v. INS as authority for that practice.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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