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 data scientist, proposed to develop an advanced Public Policy Perception Analysis platform using predictive modeling, NLP, and machine learning to analyze public sentiment on government policy and forecast political advertising spending.
Field: data science / predictive modeling and NLP · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional; only the national interest waiver prongs were at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not apparent how the prospective impact of the work - whether research or otherwise - would extend beyond the prospective employer and rise to a level commensurate with national importance”
“none of the articles discuss any details relating to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or otherwise speak to its potential prospective impact”
“he did not elaborate on the specific ways the Petitioner's work "has fundamentally influenced the field of advertising analytics"”
“the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“none of the articles discuss any details relating to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or otherwise speak to its potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO acknowledged that USCIS' underlying decision 'contains some problematic language' (e.g., appearing to require field-wide adoption or government endorsement) but held these errors were not significant enough to undermine the denial, affirming dismissal solely on prong 1 national importance and expressly reserving prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad.
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. 103.5
- 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