NIW Bearings
remandedDEC072021_01B52032021-12-07 · 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, a computer science lecturer, proposed to continue research on data analytics techniques applied to fields such as healthcare, transportation, and social media, while also indicating he was seeking a tenure-track university position or a permanent role at the FDA.

Field: computer science / data science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director did not address EB-2 threshold qualification; AAO remands for Director to address this issue first.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

the Director should determine whether there is sufficient and consistent information concerning the nature of the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor
a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    The letter does not address his prior statements regarding his intention to either continue working in academia or obtain a position at the Food and Drug Administration.
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
1,581coded 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 remands because the Director skipped the threshold EB-2 determination and prong 1 analysis entirely; the decision highlights inconsistency between the petitioner's stated endeavor (research) and evidence suggesting an active job search for a tenure-track or FDA position, which AAO notes is not the purpose of an NIW.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The Director failed to first determine EB-2 eligibility or clearly identify the specific proposed endeavor, an inconsistency (teaching vs. research vs. job search) requiring remand before any national importance analysis could proceed.

Transferable lesson

Define one consistent, specific endeavor early and throughout the record; avoid conflating job-search plans or teaching duties with a concrete proposed undertaking.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles