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.
Petitioner, a Senior Software Developer and Team Leader at a company serving trading firms and brokerages, proposed to provide IT specialist services in web development, database management, DevOps, and software design, claiming these innovations would benefit the broader IT field and U.S. economy.
Field: information technology / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO reserved the exceptional ability determination since the NIW analysis was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the plan does not address how he will introduce and disseminate his various initiatives through his work as a Senior Software Developer and Team Leader beyond his employer”
“these projections are not supported by relevant or probative evidence, details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they will be realized”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
“the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by relevant or probative evidence, details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they will be realized”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value.”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Petitioner argued on appeal that the Director erred by mischaracterizing his 'professional plan' as a 'business plan,' distinguishing between operating as an individual IT specialist versus a business entity; AAO did not find this distinction dispositive and analyzed the plan's lack of evidentiary support regardless. AAO also analogized to a hypothetical local physical therapy business/shortage scenario to illustrate that local benefit does not equal national importance, though Petitioner's case did not itself involve a physical therapy business.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner's claimed economic impacts (job creation, cost savings, GDP contribution) were conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and not tied to how his specific work beyond his employer would achieve them.
Support projected economic/technological impact with concrete data, causal mechanisms, and evidence tying the specific endeavor—not generic industry statistics—to national-scale effects.
vague
critical_emerging_tech · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
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