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 sought to research, develop, and apply innovative business model approaches using emerging technologies (IoT, blockchain, AI, big data) to produce business model tools for wealth creation, potentially through a university faculty position, a startup, or industry employment.
Field: financial technologies / information systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO affirmed that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his PhD in industrial engineering.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the description of the work he intends to do in the United States is ambiguous and does not include discussion of his specific goals”
“the specific area of the Petitioner's research is not clear”
“The Petitioner's general unsupported assertions that his research "to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies" has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake," and evidence of its "potential prospective impact."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“opinions from his peers about the importance of his work and accomplishments in the field of financial technologies”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
- resume experience · ignored
- contract revenue · discounted
“he does not claim or provide evidence that... any other institution... has offered him a faculty position”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field or industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“the description of the work he intends to do in the United States is ambiguous and does not include discussion of his specific goals”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO agreed with Petitioner that the Director had misconstrued his endeavor as mere IT specialist work, but still dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence insufficient regardless; extensive discussion of due-process/consideration-of-evidence arguments citing Buletini and Visinscaia, rejected under Ren v. USCIS and Osuchukwu.
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.
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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