NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV172025_01B52032025-11-17 · 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 machine learning scientist, proposed to continue developing AI and deep learning models for computational pathology and surgery-assisting diagnostic technologies at his current employer, with a stated long-term goal of advancing AI in pathology and medicine more broadly.

Field: machine learning / biomedical informatics (AI in pathology and medical diagnostics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification as an advanced-degree professional based on his U.S. PhD; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“we therefore withdraw SCOPS' adverse decision under prong one and conclude that by establishing the substantive merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The record lacks supporting material to demonstrate that the company is operational and creating revenue, or that it even exists.”
“the company 'is currently in stealth as we continue to secure approved patents'”
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence to corroborate those assertions; not even evidence that the company is compensating him for his work”
“we cannot conclude that the quality and quantity of the submitted evidence of the Petitioner's published work shows that he has a record of success”
“he did not offer any evidence from Google Scholar ... demonstrating his citation history when he filed the petition”
“absent are some of the more persuasive items such as patents, copies of contracts, agreements, or licenses relating to the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · credited
  • business plan · discounted
    “The record lacks supporting material to demonstrate that the company is operational and creating revenue, or that it even exists.”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “not even evidence that the company is compensating him for his work”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “it is unclear what this evidence would have revealed on the date he filed the petition”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · ignored
    “absent are some of the more persuasive items such as patents, copies of contracts, agreements, or licenses”
    AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
  • resume experience · discounted
    “we cannot conclude that the quality and quantity of the submitted evidence of the Petitioner's published work shows that he has a record of success”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,358coded 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

Before reaching the Dhanasar prongs, the AAO found an independent, alternative basis for dismissal: the Petitioner materially changed his description of the proposed endeavor between the initial filing, the RFE response, and the appeal (shifting from work solely for his employer to a vaguer, broader field-level goal), calling this inconsistency alone sufficient to preclude approval ('This incongruity alone precludes this petition's approval') under Matter of Katigbak/Matter of Ho, before expressly setting that flaw aside to still analyze the merits. The decision also flags, as a non-dispositive but adverse factor, the lack of evidence regarding FDA regulatory approval/clearance for the employer's technology. The AAO's conclusion states each identified deficiency is 'an independent and alternative basis for the decision.'

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer