dismissedFEB262025_01B52032025-02-26 · 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 software engineer specializing in machine learning security, proposed to investigate vulnerabilities in machine learning and AI systems (including large language models) and design advanced defense mechanisms to enhance their security and reliability, primarily through his employment and academic collaborations.

Field: machine learning / AI security software engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as advanced degree professional based on his Master of Science degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence does not, however, establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects or have other broader implications in his field on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“J-J- does not specify, however, how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond his employer, his employer's customers, and other researchers to impact his field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“These documents address the importance of AI security, but do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“does not discuss any potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“The evidence does not, however, establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“address the importance of AI security, but do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

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 expressly withdrew part of the Director's decision (the 'unauthorized access or security violation' characterization and the finding that off-employment aspects were irrelevant) yet still dismissed on prong 1 national importance grounds; illustrates cross-prong error correction without changing outcome.

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-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

A genuinely strong ML-security research record failed prong 1 because ten letters praised past work without addressing the endeavor's prospective impact, and AI-security policy documents spoke to the field, not his specific work.

Transferable lesson

Letters must speak to your endeavor's future impact, not your past excellence; a strong publication record plus field-level government policy documents still leaves the prospective-impact question unanswered.

Endeavor framing

specific

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · national_security

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer