NIW Bearings
remandedJUL292025_01B52032025-07-29 · appeal

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 work as an aquaculture consultant designing and managing shrimp and fish farm operations for small California businesses, while also conducting research, teaching, and developing environmental education and management programs related to aquaculture.

Field: aquaculture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found Petitioner eligible as an advanced degree professional, but AAO questioned this on remand, noting his stated occupation (aquaculture consultant, SOC 45-2093) typically requires only a high school diploma, and directed SCOPS to fully analyze whether the intended occupation qualifies as a profession requiring a bachelor's degree.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“SCOPS did not indicate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a broader societal impact by contributing to critical and emerging technologies in a STEM field.”
“SCOPS incorrectly identified the Petitioner's work as benefiting the company”
“it is not clear that SCOPS's first prong analysis is based on the correct Petitioner or proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“SCOPS appears to have conflated the EB-2 NIW requirements with EB-1 requirements for aliens of extraordinary ability.”
“SCOPS did not mention the applicable STEM field in its second prong analysis.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“SCOPS's analysis did not sufficiently address the guidance provided by the USCIS Policy Manual with respect to those asserting eligibility with a proposed endeavor advancing a critical and emerging technology in a STEM field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Unusual outcome where the AAO sides substantially with the petitioner against SCOPS, finding SCOPS conflated EB-1 extraordinary ability standards with EB-2 NIW's second prong, misidentified the petitioner's employer/company throughout the first prong analysis, and failed to apply STEM-specific USCIS Policy Manual guidance across all three prongs. The AAO also raised sua sponte a threshold EB-2 classification concern (whether the occupation truly requires a bachelor's degree) that SCOPS itself had not questioned, directing further analysis on remand rather than reaching a final conclusion on any prong.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

SCOPS applied wrong legal standards (EB-1 rigor for prong two, no STEM analysis, wrong company name) and failed to verify the underlying occupation requires a bachelor's degree, requiring remand rather than merits resolution.

Transferable lesson

Ensure the underlying occupation clearly requires a bachelor's degree and explicitly invoke STEM/critical-technology policy factors to avoid adjudicator error or misapplied EB-1 standards.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer