NIW Bearings
remandedJUN262025_04B52032025-06-26 · 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 Beneficiary, a software developer specializing in advanced driver assist systems (ADAS), proposed to continue advancing development, calibration, testing, and validation of collision avoidance and automated driving technologies, including using AI/automation to improve testing efficiency and accuracy.

Field: automotive safety engineering (ADAS / automated driving technology) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not at issue on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“Simply intending to work in the software engineering field does not constitute an endeavor.”
“SCOPS also appears to have conflated the second prong of the Dhanasar framework with the first prong in discussing the proposed endeavor's national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“it does not analyze any of the documentation cited in relation to the description of the proposed endeavor or the Beneficiary's positioning to advance the endeavor, stating to the Petitioner, "You did not describe his proposed endeavor."”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“You offered no evidence that the national interest in your beneficiary's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process or that the proposed endeavor may lead to potential creation of jobs.”
“SCOPS did not sufficiently address guidance specifically provided by the USCIS Policy Manual regarding endeavors in STEM fields.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · ignored
    “You did not describe his proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · ignored
    “You did not describe his proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text

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 posture: the AAO does not affirm any prong failure but instead remands because SCOPS' own denial was inadequately reasoned, using boilerplate/stock language ('You did not describe his proposed endeavor') and conflating Dhanasar prongs 1 and 2. The AAO expressly withdraws SCOPS' determinations on all three prongs and instructs SCOPS to re-analyze consistent with Dhanasar and STEM-specific USCIS Policy Manual guidance, expressing no opinion on the ultimate outcome.

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
  • 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

AAO found SCOPS applied conclusory, unanalyzed denials—ignoring RFE-clarified endeavor description, conflating prongs 1 and 2, and failing to apply STEM policy factors—requiring remand for a properly reasoned decision rather than resolving eligibility.

Transferable lesson

Clearly separate the endeavor's prospective national impact (prong 1) from the beneficiary's credentials (prong 2), and explicitly invoke STEM critical-technology/competitiveness policy factors to force reasoned agency analysis.

Endeavor framing

specific

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer