NIW Bearings
remandedMAR192025_04B52032025-03-19 · appeal · Nebraska 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 Beneficiary proposed to use advanced computing, cloud computing, and data processing/analysis techniques to develop data infrastructure for gaming and streaming services.

Field: advanced computing / cloud computing / data infrastructure for gaming and streaming services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director correctly concluded the Beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the Petitioner's focus when asserting national importance was on the general value ofthe Beneficiary's asserted field and a shortage ofworkers therein”
“it did not sufficiently demonstrate that his specific employment would likely have a broad impact at a national level leading to breakthrough technologies”
“the specific impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor on the Petitioner's aggregate user and revenue numbers was not sufficiently established”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“the Director's analysis on the third prong did not sufficiently address the guidance specifically provided by the users Policy Manual with respect to those asserting a beneficiary's eligibility with a proposed endeavor advancing a critical and emerging technology in a STEM field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the specific impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor on the Petitioner's aggregate user and revenue numbers was not sufficiently established”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “this evidence relates to the second Dhanasar prong, being well-positioned, rather than the first prong”
    AAO decision text

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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
  • Strong positive factor rejected · p3 — the STEM critical-and-emerging-technology factor was claimed but not accepted on the record
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

Unusual mixed remand: the AAO disagreed with the Director's favorable finding on prong one (national importance) while simultaneously faulting the Director's denial on prong three for failing to apply USCIS Policy Manual STEM guidance, resulting in remand rather than dismissal or sustainment.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

AAO found the Director's prong-one national-importance finding was conclusory (no analysis) and the prong-three denial ignored the USCIS Policy Manual's STEM critical-tech factors; both required fuller analysis on remand.

Transferable lesson

Directly link the endeavor's own outputs (not field-wide or personal-achievement data) to nationally scaled effects, and explicitly invoke the STEM critical-and-emerging-technology policy factors for prong three.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer