The Petitioner, an industrial engineer with a Ph.D., proposed to develop advanced three-dimensional integrated circuits functioning as state-of-the-art AI chips to enhance process optimization, physics modeling, semiconductor integration, and cost reductions in semiconductor applications, utilizing expertise in semiconductor physics, novel material development, and very-large-scale integration.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Routine or incremental contributions that merely add knowledge or other improvements to the field without broader implications are generally insufficient to satisfy Dhanasar's prong one requirements.”

“the Petitioner's claims that his efforts are nationally important could be adopted and used by anyone performing the same type of work.”

“lacking is what impact his efforts will have in the field beyond making incremental improvements to what is already present.”

“the Petitioner seemingly has conflated prong one's substantial merit requirements with its national importance mandate.”

“he has not demonstrated his particular proposed endeavor has national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“SCOPS found the Petitioner satisfied this prong as the Petitioner notes in the appeal brief.”

“we withdraw SCOPS' prong two determination rather than leading him to believe that in any motion he files on this decision, or in any future NIW petition, he should expect prong two to be satisfied.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner doesn't offer any names of the authors either, nor does he refer to the contents of any of the support letters”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Simply 'advancing goals' that are nationally important, as the Petitioner claims here, doesn't make the cut to be nationally important.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO took the unusual step of withdrawing SCOPS' favorable prong 2 determination sua sponte, even though prong 1 was dispositive, explicitly to prevent the petitioner from relying on that grant in future filings or motions. The decision contains an extensive and unusually detailed doctrinal discussion of what 'national importance' requires under Dhanasar, including a lengthy rebuttal of the petitioner's four appellate arguments. The AAO agreed with the petitioner on two minor points (SCOPS improperly referenced 'contributions of major significance,' and SCOPS conflated the endeavor with employment to some degree) but still dismissed. The AAO also agreed that time devoted to the endeavor is more properly analyzed under prong 2. Heavy reliance on federal circuit court case law regarding the presumption of regularity and prejudice requirements is notable for an NIW decision.

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.

• Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
• The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
• The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
• The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
• The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl