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 project manager, proposed to strategically integrate artificial intelligence technologies into health management systems, though supporting letters instead described an app and a differently-named COVID-19 compliance company.
Field: project management / AI integration into health management systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the third-party support letters instead refer to an app the Petitioner would purportedly create”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's motion includes insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This decision arises from combined motions to reopen/reconsider a prior summary dismissal of the appeal, not from a direct merits appeal of the denial. The AAO explicitly declines to reach the NIW eligibility prongs, stating 'our instant decision will not make a determination on this matter' on the underlying eligibility question, even though it notes in dictum (assuming arguendo the motion to reopen were procedurally sufficient) that the Petitioner's evidence was inconsistent about the nature of the proposed endeavor (AI health-management integration vs. an app vs. a differently-named COVID-19 compliance company). The motion to reopen also failed because new evidence post-filing cannot establish eligibility as of the priority date (Matter of Katigbak), and the motion to reconsider failed because Petitioner cited no authority showing the summary dismissal was legally erroneous.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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