dismissedFEB212025_01B52032025-02-21 · 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 Petitioner, a machine learning engineer, proposed to continue developing AI models to protect content safety and improve robustness and fairness of AI systems for his employer's platform.

Field: machine learning / artificial intelligence (computer and information research science) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found and AAO did not dispute that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not show that [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond [his] company, future clientele, or business partnership to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would reach a level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar”

“whether a field may be relevant to a national priority is a separate analysis from whether any particular endeavor within such a field is nationally important.”

“neither the updated personal statement nor the remainder of the record establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications”

“beyond benefitting his current employer, its content, and its users.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

media · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner and the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“discusses computer science, artificial intelligence, and social media in generalities, rather than providing probative, corroborating evidence”
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

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

Petitioner unsuccessfully argued that the Director misapplied USCIS Policy Manual STEM guidance and failed to credit relevance to the 2023 Executive Order on AI; AAO clarified that field/industry importance is distinct from endeavor-specific national importance. AAO expressly reserved judgment on prongs two and three, resolving the case entirely on prong one.

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
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

His endeavor was his employer's content-safety work; claiming it was distinct from employment while naming no other plans, and citing field-level AI publications and an Executive Order, failed to show the endeavor's own national importance.

Transferable lesson

Aligning your field with an Executive Order or national AI priority is not the test; show your specific endeavor's impact beyond your employer, or the distinct-from-employment claim collapses.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · government_interest

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer