NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN212025_01B52032025-01-21 · appeal · Nebraska 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 Beneficiary, an assistant vice president at a financial services firm, proposed to use machine learning, deep learning, and advanced computing/data analysis techniques to build statistical models, dashboards, and model validation and risk management frameworks to decrease market risk and improve regulatory compliance.

Field: financial risk management / machine learning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we concur with the Director that the Petitioner demonstrated the endeavor has substantial merit but that it does not rise to the level of national importance.”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's endeavor alone has national implications within the field.”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the submitted letters contain broad, general assertions that the Beneficiary's work impacts the financial and technological sectors at large, but do not provide details of how his specific endeavor will impact the field”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's endeavor as an assistant vice president has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the submitted letters contain broad, general assertions... but do not provide details of how his specific endeavor will impact the field at the level of national importance.”
    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
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 explicitly rejected Petitioner's argument that NIW national-importance need not exceed benefit to employer; reserved p2/p3 under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- doctrine of declining unnecessary findings.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer