dismissedMAR252025_04B52032025-03-25 · appeal · Texas 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 industrial engineer working as an IT operations research/analytics consultant for a U.S. airline, proposed to continue research developing advanced mathematical and machine-learning approaches for decision-making in complex systems, with claimed applications to healthcare crisis management, supply chain, and military operations.
Field: industrial engineering / operations research and analytics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“they do not demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence concerning past or future funding commitments to support the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“working in a STEM field and with critical and emerging technologies is not sufficient to establish the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“does not establish the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record lacks sufficient evidence concerning past or future funding commitments to support the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles and reports discuss issues relevant to his research field, they do not demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Funding absent · p1 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
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 specifically rejected the argument that involvement in a STEM/critical-and-emerging-technologies field alone establishes national importance, citing USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2); Petitioner's argument that Director improperly focused on economic benefits was also rejected.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution