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, a senior AI engineer, proposed to continue research at his current employer developing frameworks and foundational models to improve AI systems' ability to code, plan, and reason, aiming to enable more autonomous, reliable AI systems.
Field: artificial intelligence / machine learning research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director/SCOPS already found petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional based on his U.S. master's degree; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
“You make multiple statements regarding the national importance of your proposed endeavor that are not supported by evidence.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · credited
“it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the Petitioner's success.”
AAO decision text - media · credited
“speak in broad terms about technology and trends in advanced computing technologies in general.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
“has not submitted nay evidence of a job offer or explained how they will continue their work in the United States.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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 disposition: rather than affirming or reversing on the merits of any Dhanasar prong, the AAO withdrew SCOPS's denial and remanded solely because the decision failed to adequately explain its reasoning, contained internally contradictory statements (e.g., stating the endeavor lacked national importance while also stating 'the work ... has national importance'), mischaracterized or ignored record evidence, and improperly conflated the second and third Dhanasar prongs. The AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate merits.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS's denial was procedurally deficient—conclusory, internally contradictory, and failed to analyze submitted evidence—so AAO withdrew it and remanded for a properly reasoned decision on all three Dhanasar prongs.
Even strong evidentiary records can trigger remand rather than approval if the adjudicator's decision is inadequately reasoned; challenge conclusory denials that ignore submitted evidence.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · national_security · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · us_competitiveness
mixed
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