NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC182025_03B52032025-12-18 · 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 fraud data analyst, proposed to continue working for her current e-commerce/entertainment platform employer developing machine-learning and AI models to detect and prevent fraud and cyber threats.

Field: fraud data analysis / cybersecurity / data science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO agreed with SCOPS that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her master's degree in information systems.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Her statement mainly provides summaries, without specific details or supporting evidence, of her ongoing work projects”
“the potential impact of her endeavor extends beyond her employer and its clients to have a broader impact to her field”
“the Petitioner, however, makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence, that her fraud data analyst work would impact national government policies”
“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”
“Stating that a profession related to the STEM field is of importance...is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “mainly focuses on the Petitioner's previous fraud data analyst work and accomplishments with general statements about her ongoing work”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “The articles and reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific work with her employer and its potential impact on the field”
    AAO decision text
  • 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
  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

The AAO rejected the Petitioner's argument that SCOPS applied a heightened evidentiary standard, and expressly declined to reach prongs two and three (both of which SCOPS and, implicitly, the AAO treated as met) because prong one alone was dispositive.

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. 103.5
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Her endeavor was her job: fraud-detection work whose documented value ran to her employer and its customers, with no evidence her methods differ from a typical fraud analyst's or would be adopted by the field; prong one failed.

Transferable lesson

An endeavor that is your job description will be bounded to your employer; show methods that differ from the role's norm and evidence the field will adopt them.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · economic_growth_generic · national_security

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer