dismissedMAY152025_03B52032025-05-15 · 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 staff product manager at a digital advertising company, sought to continue developing an AI-driven, cookie-free advertising system compliant with evolving data privacy laws.
Field: digital advertising / privacy-centric AI technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not determinative of whether a person's endeavor has national importance.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its operations to impact the field of privacy centric advertising”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's specific proposed work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters describe the Petitioner and her work but speak more to the Petitioner's position to advance her endeavor than to the national importance of the endeavor itself.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she did not establish the impact her specific work for her employer would have in allaying the fears of those individuals”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 cites a newly issued USCIS Policy Alert (PA-2025-03, Jan. 15, 2025) on NIW national importance, and notes that a cited executive order on AI development had been revoked as of the decision date, reflecting a rapidly shifting policy landscape.
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
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