The Petitioner, a software development engineer with a master's degree in computer science, proposed to strengthen communication system security by building privacy-preserving data systems integrating AI/ML models and conducting research on secure data systems and real-time analytics.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not demonstrate how her work would extend beyond her employer and its clients to impact her field more broadly in a manner commensurate with national importance.”

“The Petitioner's citation record indicates her work has been acknowledged by other researchers, but does not indicate that such recognition is at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“M-Z- does not, however, discuss how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond her employer and its clients to imp[act her] field more broadly.”

“S-V-K- does not explain how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond her employer and its clients to impact U.S. national security and economic competitiveness.”

“The articles and reports attest to the importance of data privacy and cybersecurity, but do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “does not indicate that such recognition is at a level commensurate with national importance”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not discuss her specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “attest to the importance of data privacy and cybersecurity, but do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as recent circuit authority confirming NIW grants are discretionary, joining several other circuits. Decision reserves prongs 2 and 3 entirely, resting solely on prong 1 failure regarding scope beyond employer/clients.

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)
• Matter of L-A-C-

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