NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG282024_01B52032024-08-28 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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, co-founder and CEO of an AI/ML company, proposed to continue developing and deploying search-and-find methodologies to detect concealed critical mineral deposits, then partner with mining companies to extract those minerals in exchange for royalties and minority equity.

Field: artificial intelligence and machine learning for mineral exploration (search and find methodologies) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable EB-2 exceptional ability determination. The ten-year experience criterion failed because letters from V-D- and former colleagues were self-authored or not from employers and lacked specificity on duties and dates. The significant contributions criterion failed because letters were conclusory and uncorroborated, commendation medals did not name the petitioner, a prize was unexplained, and the patent application was abandoned in 2020 before filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“this evidence establishes the importance of the Petitioner's field rather than his specific endeavor.”
“the record does not contain sufficient information and evidence to explain how his proposed activities to rely on AI and ML methodologies to improve the accuracy of locating critical minerals, and then contracting the drilling to other mining companies, will have broader implications within his industry.”
“the record establishes that the company does not provide their platform to the wider industry, but rather limits the benefits to their direct partners.”
“the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence to establish that his operations will impact the field more broadly, rather than provide direct benefit to his company and his partners.”
“the evidence indicates that the company currently has five employees, and relies on multiple contractors, yet it is not clear if these are full-time or part-time positions.”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence to substantiate his assertions regarding the valuation of his company.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “this evidence establishes the importance of the Petitioner's field rather than his specific endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “they lack specificity regarding the duties performed and the dates of employment, they are insufficient to account for the remaining required full-time employment in the occupation sought.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the record does not contain documentary evidence to corroborate this assertion.”
    AAO decision text
  • awards · discounted
    “the medals do not name the Petitioner, and as such, it is not clear to whom these medals were issued.”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “the application was abandoned in 2020, prior to the filing of this petition.”
    AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
  • other · credited
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not provided evidence to substantiate his assertions regarding the valuation of his company.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the articles relating to the technological advances used by the including search and find methodologies, do not mention the Petitioner.”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • 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 took the unusual step of withdrawing the Director's favorable EB-2 exceptional ability determination sua sponte on appeal, even though the appeal was already being dismissed on prong 1 grounds, explicitly noting it would serve no legal purpose to issue an RFE on the threshold issue given the prong 1 failure. The decision also addresses petitioner's procedural arguments at length: that the RFE was defective for requesting advanced-degree evidence when petitioner claimed exceptional ability, and that the Director's citation of the Kazarian standard alongside Dhanasar constituted a 'major legal error' — both arguments were rejected. The AAO applied a harmless-error analysis citing Shinseki v. Sanders to dispose of the procedural objections.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer