NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR162026_03B52032026-03-16 · appeal · SCOPS Service Center

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 'AI Strategist Leader,' integrating artificial intelligence into business strategies to boost efficiency, innovation, and competitive edge, potentially through a consultancy or standardized replicable framework.

Field: artificial intelligence strategy / business AI integration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found and AAO agreed that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, based on a foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's of business administration in information technology management.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake.”
“the record contains unresolved, inconsistent statements on whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will be a tailored consultancy or a standardized framework.”
“the record does not establish how his endeavor will have broader implications.”
“the record only establishes that the Petitioner will deploy his proposed endeavor in Texas; more specifically and does not specify which underserved counties his proposed endeavor will serve.”
“both authors offer unsupported statistics in their letters.”
“the record does not include evidence to support these statements such as how his bias mitigation algorithms tackle this cost or what quantifiable economic impact his proposed endeavor will have.”
“the Petitioner does not include information about what types of jobs his specific proposed endeavor will create, where they will be created, or how many jobs he will create.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters lack corroborating evidence and lean on the Petitioner's past experience as support for their claims.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the record contains unresolved, inconsistent statements on whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will be a tailored consultancy or a standardized framework.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “this evidence reinforces the Petitioner's statements about government support for the advancement of AI, it does not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “evidence of the Petitioner's past success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar's prong two analysis... It does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO partially agreed with the Petitioner's appeal, acknowledging SCOPS incorrectly labeled him as a 'Software Engineer/Developer' and mischaracterized the professional plan as a business plan subject to commercial viability standards; nonetheless the appeal was dismissed on national importance grounds. AAO found substantial merit under prong 1 but failed the Petitioner solely on the national importance element of prong 1, an unusual split within the first prong. The decision also noted an internal inconsistency in the record between the initial filing framing the endeavor as a consultancy and the RFE response recharacterizing it as a 'replicable institutional infrastructure.' Geographic deployment was limited to specific locations in Texas, undermining national scope claims.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Unresolved inconsistency about whether endeavor was a tailored consultancy or scalable national framework, combined with unsupported, generic economic/job-creation claims lacking evidence of national or global scale.

Transferable lesson

Clearly and consistently define the endeavor's scope, then support national-impact claims with corroborated, quantified evidence tied specifically to that endeavor—not industry importance or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · economic_job_creation · us_competitiveness · government_interest

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer