NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR162026_04B52032026-03-16 · 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, an embedded software engineer, proposed to conduct research and development in computer systems focusing on machine learning at the edge and hardware-software interfaces, aiming to extend AI capabilities on edge hardware and lower technical barriers to entry for edge AI users.

Field: software engineering / edge AI and hardware-software interfaces · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS determined and AAO agreed that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional based on a master of science degree in electrical and computer engineering.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the record lacks sufficient probative, credible documentary evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the potential to impact the field of edge AI, or national security, at a level commensurate with national importance.
the record lacks documentary evidence to support these claims or to otherwise demonstrate the interest of the U.S. armed forces or the Department of Defense in the Petitioner's technological developments.
these support letters primarily discuss the Petitioner's research work as a graduate student, rather than his proposed endeavor as an employee of [employer] or its potential prospective impact.
S.A. does not discuss the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor at [employer]. He states only that his work at [employer] is 'another example of his innovative work.'
the record lacks documentary evidence to establish this type of widespread interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, that it is novel and important, or that it stands to impact the field.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    these support letters primarily discuss the Petitioner's research work as a graduate student, rather than his proposed endeavor as an employee
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    this statement lacks sufficient specificity about the endeavor itself or its potential prospective impact to be credible or persuasive in establishing its national importance.
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    The evidence does not show that the Petitioner's specific area of research, edge AI computing, has been integral to [employer's] participation in these competitions
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    the record lacks sufficient documentary evidence to support the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1"work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Letters conclusory · p1letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p1letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
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

The AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, invoking Matter of Furtado and 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(11), finding the Petitioner had been put on notice of evidentiary deficiencies via RFE and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The AAO also explicitly distinguished the record from Matter of Dhanasar on its facts, noting the absence of probative letters from senior government or academic officials and lack of documentary corroboration for claimed DoD/U.S. Army interest. The Petitioner's procedural argument that SCOPS provided only 'generic' language was rejected after de novo review. The AAO cited non-precedent decisions submitted by the Petitioner but noted they are not binding under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c).

Cases in adjacent profiles