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 scientist, proposed to develop optimization algorithms with theoretical guarantees for large-scale structured modeling and machine learning problems, including recommendation-system training, while working as a research scientist at a tech company and publishing his research.
Field: computer science / machine learning optimization · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“alignment with general national goals, in and of itself: does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”
“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular.”
“does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's specific projects at [] stand to have an impact that extends beyond the company and its clients”
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
Notable
The decision is dispositive solely on Dhanasar prong one (national importance); prongs two and three were expressly reserved. The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. after filing, during RFE response, while holding only a master's degree at filing. Employer and university names are redacted throughout with OCR artifacts (e.g., 'c=J', '[]').
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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