NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN132026_08B52032026-01-13 · 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 proposed to continue research on semiconductor device characterization and modeling techniques to identify causes of device failure and validate risks associated with next-generation memory products, working as a semiconductor device engineer for a named employer or similar company.

Field: electrical engineering / semiconductor device characterization and modeling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the advanced degree requirement met based on a foreign M.S. in Electrical Engineering. The AAO withdrew SCOPS' statement because SCOPS did not address whether the foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. degree above baccalaureate as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), but the AAO did not itself find the threshold unmet; it reserved the issue and proceeded to the NIW prongs.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposal to work as one of potentially many similar researchers for a given employer may have national or even global implications within the field”
“Although the proposed endeavor may benefit [the named employer] or any other potential employer, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposal to work as one of potentially many similar researchers”
“the record does not establish how the specific endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects”
“the question for determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance is not merely whether the endeavor will be in an industry, field, or profession that has importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“whether-and when-the Petitioner may work on this project is unclear, given that he seeks to work as an employee of [employer] or a similar employer, who may require the Petitioner to work on other projects on a full-time basis”
“the record does not establish the significance of authoring or co-authoring six publications in an 11-year period, as compared to other electrical engineering researchers”
“the article published in 2023 apparently had no citations at the time the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140 ... and the article he published in 2021 had only two citations”
“the copies of citing articles in the record provide little or no information regarding how the Petitioner's ... work has been utilized”
“one of the letters the Petitioner describes as evidence of interest from relevant entities or individuals is written by a senior coworker of his, employed by his current employer”
“Although the letters of recommendation support the conclusion that the Petitioner has assisted-and is likely to continue assisting-other researchers in their research projects, they do not support the conclusion that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · credited
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the record does not establish the significance of the number of citations to the articles”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “Unsubstantiated claims such as these do not help us understand evidence or determine facts, and they reduce the probative value of the letter”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the record contains limited information regarding the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “generalized information regarding semiconductors”
    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
  • 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
  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' threshold EB-2 finding because SCOPS failed to analyze whether the petitioner's foreign M.S. degree is equivalent to a U.S. degree above baccalaureate, but did not itself adjudicate the threshold issue. Both P1 and P2 were found separately dispositive. The AAO noted that updated citation data submitted in response to the RFE could not be considered because it post-dated the I-140 filing date, and further observed that even if considered, it would add only six additional citations across all six articles—a negligible difference. The petitioner's role as third, fourth, or fifth credited co-author on all six publications was highlighted as attenuating his claimed contributions.

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer