dismissedMAY222025_03B52032025-05-22 · 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 research scientist employed at a technology company, proposed to develop machine learning models to detect trademark misuse and fraudulent advertising and to apply transfer learning techniques to single-cell RNA sequencing data to distinguish rare tumor cell types.

Field: machine learning / data science (trademark fraud detection and scRNA-seq bioinformatics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the limited information in the record regarding how, where, and when the Petitioner would conduct her proposed scRNA-seq data analysis casts doubt on whether the endeavor would actually involve such research”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”

“The remainder of the letter provides abstract and conclusory statements, such as what "researchers can find," why scRNA-seq data analysis "is an important technique,"”

“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“does not provide further information regarding the broader implications of the specific endeavor... we need not address it further”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letter addresses generalized information rather than explaining how the specific endeavor... we need not address it further”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“those publications do not appear to address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the FTC press release does not address how the specific endeavor... we need not address it further”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“casts doubt on whether the endeavor would actually involve such research, minimizing the reliability and sufficiency of her personal statement”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

1,581coded 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

SCOPS's RFE decision had summarily found prongs one (substantial merit) and two satisfied and denied only on prong three, but AAO instead dismissed the appeal by finding prong one (national importance) unmet, reserving opinion on prongs two and three entirely—an internal mismatch between the agency's RFE reasoning and its final denial/appellate rationale. Heavy OCR redaction of employer name and duties throughout.

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 Ho
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer