dismissedJAN132026_03B52032026-01-13 · appeal · SCOPS 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 developer employed as a production engineer, proposed to develop a universal, open-source AI infrastructure with built-in fairness and bias mitigation mechanisms that could be rapidly scaled for use by businesses of all sizes across industries.

Field: artificial intelligence / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance.”

“they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting her employer and its clients.”

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”

“alignment with general national goals, in and of itself, does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting her employer and its clients.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the author does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's specific projects stand to have an impact that extends beyond the company and its clients to influence the Petitioner's field of endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her field.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's professional experiences are generally material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

746coded 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

SCOPS had already conceded prongs 1 (substantial merit) and 2 (well positioned), finding only national importance under prong 1 and prong 3 lacking; the AAO on appeal addressed only national importance under prong 1 as dispositive and declined to reach prong 3. The decision also flags an unresolved ambiguity about whether the petitioner's endeavor is truly independent of her employer or would be proprietary to it, though this was not treated as a separate ground of denial.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

She could not show the endeavor was distinct from her employer's work, so impact read as stopping at the employer and its clients; and STEM or national-goal alignment does not by itself establish national importance.

Transferable lesson

An endeavor you cannot distinguish from your employer's work reads as employer benefit; alignment with STEM national goals is not, by itself, national importance.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer