dismissedDEC122024_08B52032024-12-12 · 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, an AI researcher, proposed to apply advanced AI techniques, cloud computing, and biomedical big data analysis to create disease risk prediction and detection tools, working as a Senior Researcher for the U.S. office of his Taiwanese employer.
Field: artificial intelligence / medical AI research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agree Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence describing the Petitioner's endeavor and its future potential impact”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a researcher employed by the US office of his Taiwanese company”
“they do not adequately describe the endeavor itself: the Petitioner's future plans, or how they would rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the first Dhanasar prong”
“Below, the Director determined that the national importance impact was limited to the Petitioner and his employer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Simply going on record without supporting substantive evidence to support assertions, is not sufficient in these proceedings.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“there is no evidence in the record that distinguishes the citation marked "notable" from other citations in the record”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- other · discounted
“the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of healthcare or similarly related subjects, are nationally important”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 characterized the Director's improper invocation of the 'record of success' criterion (a prong-two concept) within the prong-one analysis as harmless error rather than legal error, since the ultimate national-importance conclusion was still correct.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl