dismissedJUL142021_03B52032021-07-14 · 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 Petitioner, an economist with government and think-tank experience abroad, proposed to gain employment as an economist with a U.S. federal government department, university, or research institution, potentially applying prior program experience to U.S. welfare programs.
Field: economics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found she qualifies as a member of the professions with an advanced degree; sole issue was the NIW.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not specifically describe her work and its potential prospective impact to the field of economics or to SNAP or other welfare programs in the United States”
“she does not describe the model she proposes to apply or how it would have broader implications”
“the record lacks evidence or an explanation of who would benefit from the effects of the Petitioner's employment as an economist at a university or think tank, or what form those effects would take”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this information shows that the SNAP program is of national importance...the Petitioner does not specifically describe her work and its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
Where this case turned
- 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
1,619coded 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 rejected new business plan/consulting-firm endeavor raised for first time on appeal under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena, declining to consider it as an impermissible new theory of the endeavor.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl