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.
A software engineer proposed a multifaceted endeavor advancing cloud computing infrastructure, working with AI and big data technologies, and contributing to STEM/computer science education.
Field: software engineering / cloud computing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The benefits provided by a single software engineer are too attenuated to have national importance.”
“he did not establish the endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clients to impact the field or the nation more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“Mere conclusory assertions do not enable us to determine whether a filing party's eligibility claims are any more reliable than hopeful speculation.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“Mere conclusory assertions do not enable us to determine whether a filing party's eligibility claims are any more reliable than hopeful speculation.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO frames its decision as resting on two independent alternative bases: (1) substantive failure of prong 1 national importance, and (2) the Petitioner's failure to specify errors of law or fact as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), which the AAO analogizes to grounds for summary dismissal even though the final order simply reads 'dismissed' rather than 'summarily dismissed.' SCOPS had found the underlying EB-2 classification met and prong 2 satisfied, but the AAO expressly reserved prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive.
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
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Otiende
- Section 291 of the Act
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