dismissedMAY092025_03B52032025-05-09 · appeal
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, a software engineer with a master's in computer science, proposed to develop an AI/ML-powered voice biometrics authentication system to enhance security and prevent fraud in financial and commercial systems.
Field: artificial intelligence / machine learning voice biometrics authentication · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be reached”
“the record lacks adequate corroborating evidence that the Petitioner's contributions would be adopted or implemented on a national scale or result in broader impact to his field”
“his evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the national level impact on the voice biometrics and cybersecurity industries as a whole”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be reached”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“professional experience is generally material to Dhanasar's second prong...but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the report does not detail the Petitioner's specific task in the project; and thus, it is not clear the extent of the Petitioner's involvement”
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
2,589coded 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 explicitly reserved reaching prongs 2 and 3 as dispositive of prong 1 failure, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach alternative issues. Petitioner's financial support letter came from his aunt, an unusual funding source noted but not substantively discussed.
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
- 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