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 senior business intelligence analyst, proposed to use advanced computing technologies to design and develop data analytics infrastructure to track performance metrics for his employer's video game streaming platform.
Field: data analytics / business intelligence for streaming platform · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“We also note that the Director made conflicting statements in the prior decision as to whether the Petitioner had established eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar related to substantial merit and national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“However, the Director's analysis on the third prong did not sufficiently address the guidance specifically provided by the USCIS policy manual with respect to those asserting a beneficiary's eligibility with a proposed endeavor advancing a critical and emerging technology in a STEM field”
“the petitioner has not established their contributions are sufficiently urgent or time-sensitive, or that their knowledge and skills could not be easily articulated on a labor certification”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The decision does not resolve the NIW merits at all; instead, the AAO finds the Director procedurally erred by using a service motion to reopen plus RFE followed by a NOIR that broadly cited all ineligibility grounds without specifying good and sufficient cause for revocation, and then 'denying' rather than properly revoking the already-approved petition. The AAO remands solely to have the Director follow proper revocation procedure under 8 C.F.R. 205.2 and to clarify conflicting findings on prong one and the beneficiary's job title, while flagging that any renewed prong-three analysis should address the USCIS Policy Manual's STEM critical-and-emerging-technology factors.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Case remanded because Director failed to properly follow revocation procedure (NOIR/denial conflation, no specific good-and-sufficient-cause) and gave conflicting/incomplete prong analysis, especially ignoring STEM policy manual factors under prong three.
When invoking STEM critical-technology strong-positive-factor guidance, explicitly map evidence to each Policy Manual factor (degree, critical tech, positioning) to prevent adjudicator oversight and preserve prong-three arguments.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · us_competitiveness
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod