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 AI researcher with a PhD in mechanical engineering, proposed to work as a university professor conducting research on integrating artificial intelligence (computer vision and data mining) into industrial applications, while also having developed an AI-based machine vision system for manufacturing and education use.
Field: artificial intelligence / computer vision, mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his PhD in mechanical engineering.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence describing this endeavor and its future potential impact.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“they do not sufficiently support the claim that the endeavor has the potential to impact these sectors at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner has been engaged in the publication or presentation of research since 2019.”
“the letters do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential prospective impact.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential prospective impact.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner has been engaged in the publication or presentation of research since 2019.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record is not clear as to the relation between the two, and whether or how he would continue”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they do not sufficiently support the claim that the endeavor has the potential to impact these sectors at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- NEW letters focus on past work · p1
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
The AAO expressly withdrew SCOPS' narrower prong-one analysis (which had improperly required U.S. worker employment or economic benefit in a depressed area) but nonetheless dismissed the appeal on de novo review, finding the endeavor itself insufficiently described and its national importance unsupported.
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
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