dismissedMAR272025_03B52032025-03-27 · 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 Beneficiary sought to work as a principal systems administrator for a U.S. clinical research and biopharmaceutical services company, maintaining systems supporting AI-powered clinical trial development.
Field: systems administration / AI-powered clinical research technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Beneficiary qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance”
“the focus of the inquiry is on the specific proposed endeavor the Beneficiary would undertake”
“The Petitioner also has not established that the proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce a national labor shortage in the STEM fields as claimed”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“they did not establish the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individuals directly served by the company”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“The Petitioner cites the scale of their overall company; however, they have not explained how the Beneficiary's endeavor would affect the company's employment metrics”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 expressly reserved (did not reach) prongs 2 and 3, finding prong 1's national importance failure alone dispositive; cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir.) on discretionary nature of NIW grants.
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