A senior AI engineer proposed to continue developing vision-language models and AI systems for pet detection, behavior analysis, and pet-care assistant applications, building on prior work in autonomous-vehicle perception technology.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner does not sufficiently separate the goals and objectives of his proposed endeavor from the goals and objectives that his employer or another entity seeking out his services would expect.”

“the evidence in the record does not convincingly demonstrate that his activities and research may have potential national or even global impact in his field, or broader implications rising to a level of national importance.”

“the importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework.”

“He has not provided evidence to support his claims that his proposed research projects would advance his field more broadly or would be different from work typically performed by a senior AI engineer for his employer.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “his colleagues, however, do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the evidence submitted in support of his claims does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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

Notable

Petitioner argued SCOPS erroneously equated his employment with his proposed endeavor, citing Buletini v. INS for abuse of discretion; AAO rejected this, finding SCOPS properly analyzed the proposed research endeavor. AAO also noted in a footnote (citing Flores v. Garland) that NIW grants are discretionary in nature, joining several circuit courts on this 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
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

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