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 development engineer, proposed to advance U.S.-led innovation in open, interpretable, agent-enabled AI by building infrastructure connecting large language models to real-world, goal-oriented tasks, including work on the CAMEL and Loong frameworks and an integrated AI agent toolkit.
Field: software engineering / artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, and this finding was not disturbed.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- other · ignored
“as the record stands, we are unable to meaningfully review the evidence”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO did not reach the merits of any Dhanasar prong; it withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded solely because numerous exhibits in the record were wholly or partially illegible, making meaningful review impossible. The AAO expressly stated it 'express[ed] no opinion as to the ultimate resolution of this case' and instead provided guidance to SCOPS on how to analyze each prong on remand after the Petitioner resubmits legible exhibits.
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.
Remand driven purely by procedural defect: numerous exhibits cited in petitioner's briefs were wholly or partially illegible, preventing meaningful appellate review of any prong.
Always submit clear, legible copies of all evidentiary exhibits; illegibility alone can void appellate merits review regardless of substantive argument quality.
specific
critical_emerging_tech · field_advancement · us_competitiveness
mixed
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