dismissedDEC032025_01B52032025-12-03 · 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 with experience at several technology employers, proposed to develop secure, scalable software systems for the U.S. healthcare and public service sectors and to enhance Electronic Health Record (EHR) system interoperability.
Field: software engineering / health IT · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with SCOPS that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional based on his master's degree in computer science.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed activities in his professional plan entail typical work of a software engineer for a technology company.”
“While individual employer or company may benefit from his activities, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient details or corroborating evidence for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the record does not establish that his endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a record of success in his field.”
“these letters do not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitute a record of success beyond having a favorable employment history.”
“one article received two citations since its publication in 2016 and more recent articles did not receive any citations.”
“It is unclear how he plans to form partnerships with multiple healthcare employers while working for his current employer”
“the record does not demonstrate interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the prospective impact of his endeavor other than in general terms”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence in the record does not corroborate that the Petitioner had any direct involvement in software innovations beyond these specific projects”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“one article received two citations since its publication in 2016 and more recent articles did not receive any citations”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“limited to his experience working as a software engineer at [employer] for about two years”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these industry articles only provide general background and information about the field and its importance but do not specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- degree · credited
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
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 reversed SCOPS' favorable finding on prong two despite SCOPS having found the Petitioner well-positioned; both prong one and prong two failures were treated as dispositive, and the AAO expressly declined to reach prong three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad to avoid advisory findings.
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
- Flores v. Garland
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