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 with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, proposed to spend five years developing a coherent framework and platform for signal-based fraud and identity anomaly detection in high-volume transaction and identity data streams.
Field: software engineering (electrical engineering PhD) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“its consistent characterization of the proposed endeavor as focusing in the biomedical area undermines its analysis of the national importance of the endeavor.”
“USCIS' broad statements concerning the record did not sufficiently identify specific deficiencies leading to its conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“SCOPS concluded without analysis that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“it is not apparent that its conclusion regarding the Petitioner's positioning to advance that endeavor was based upon an analysis of relevant facts.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
- degree · credited
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
AAO remands not because the Petitioner failed to meet the Dhanasar prongs, but because USCIS's underlying decision misidentified the nature of the proposed endeavor (mistakenly describing it as biomedical/genomic/cancer-related rather than fraud/identity-detection software) and failed to identify specific evidentiary deficiencies, citing Matter of M-P- for the requirement of a fully explained decision to permit meaningful appellate review.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
USCIS's denial rested on a factual error: it analyzed national importance as if the endeavor were biomedical/genomic software rather than the actual fraud-and-identity-detection platform, and cited no specific record evidence, requiring remand.
Ensure the adjudicator's decision engages the endeavor exactly as refined in the RFE response; challenge on appeal any mischaracterization of the endeavor's subject matter as a legal error.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · economic_growth_generic
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