dismissedFEB052025_02B52032025-02-05 · 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 machine learning engineer employed by a language-testing company, proposed to continue designing and evaluating computer-mediated tests using AI to assess language ability, publishing results in peer-reviewed venues while remaining at his current employer.

Field: machine learning / language testing (applied linguistics, AI) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's statements, however, do not sufficiently demonstrate how his endeavor will extend beyond his current employing company's interests and specific clientele in a manner that has national or global impact”

“the vice president made no reference to the application, dissemination, or use of the Petitioner's work and research on a broader scale within a particular field, beyond just its own clients.”

“the Petitioner does not specifically address whether his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, nor does he sufficiently quantify other substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“while his advanced degree is an especially positive factor, it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not show that he is primarily responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects; how the research has been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the language testing industry”

“he also has not shown that his published work has been cited by relevant parties in his field and at a level of interest sufficient to satisfy the second Dhanasar prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“generally speak to his character and professional experience as well as the value of his previous research”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“primarily describe the Petitioner's experience in the field of language testing”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“has not shown that his published work has been cited by relevant parties in his field”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

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 (5th Cir. 2023) alongside Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit precedent affirming that NIW grants are discretionary in nature.

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
Matter of E-M-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer