dismissedDEC312024_01B52032024-12-31 · appeal · Nebraska 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 Beneficiary, a product manager for data foundations at a technology company, proposed to define product requirements and direct platform development using AI/ML to detect and prevent cybercrime, hate speech, and child exploitation on the company's gaming/streaming platforms.

Field: AI/ML, data/cybersecurity for gaming and streaming platform · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from the Petitioner's operations would be directly attributable to the Beneficiary's particular role as a product manager, data foundations”

“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single employee would affect the industry more broadly”

“the Petitioner cannot rely on its market share alone to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner did not show how the Beneficiary's position as a product manager, data foundations has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“they were general in nature where they praised the Beneficiary's abilities but do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they were general in nature where they praised the Beneficiary's abilities but do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
other · discounted

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

2,501coded 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

AAO cites Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 (5th Cir. 2023) in a footnote to underscore that NIW grants are discretionary, joining several circuits on this point; the decision expressly declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1 failure is 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
Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of E-M-
Matter of Ho

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show impact attributable specifically to Beneficiary's role (one of 15 product managers) rather than to employer's platform generally, and did not quantify time spent on the claimed cybercrime-prevention function or economic/job-creation effects.

Transferable lesson

Tie evidence to the beneficiary's individual, quantifiable contribution and its distinct national-scale effect—not the employer's overall reach, field importance, or generic duty lists.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · public_health · national_security · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer