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 engineer and Ph.D. student in IT, proposed to conduct research applying AI, machine learning, and cloud computing to enhance data security across various domains.
Field: information technology / cybersecurity / data security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO did not dispute that Petitioner's master's degree in mechanical engineering qualifies her as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, the Petitioner's proposed activities as explained in the initial petition appear general and vague without a specific focus or plans.”
“we acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of cybersecurity and information technology... but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular.”
“As the letters only discuss the endeavor's impact in generalized terms, we cannot properly evaluate the endeavor's potential for broad impact in the field of data security and IT.”
“these citations do not demonstrate broad impact in the field as the articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the other cited papers.”
“the record lacks support for the Petitioner's actual findings and innovations other than general statements claiming results of various benefits in the specified fields of endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these authors do not provide details on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact to confirm that her research lends itself to improved processes”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“these citations do not demonstrate broad impact in the field as the articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this type of evidence relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO agreed with Petitioner that SCOPS erred in treating economic effects (job creation) as a strict requirement for national importance, but still found the endeavor description too vague/general to independently establish national importance, using Dhanasar's own facts as a detailed comparison point.
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 senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl