NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV242025_07B52032025-11-24 · 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 civil engineering PhD graduate, proposed to use artificial intelligence to automate the generation and analysis of construction documents and project workflow, and to predict locomotion for powered exoskeletons.

Field: civil engineering / AI-based construction automation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not in dispute on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the record does not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has the type of broader implications indicative of national importance
the publications ... do not address how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance
the letter of recommendation the Petitioner submitted ... consists of unsubstantiated, conclusory, and subjective statements
being simply listed as one of multiple authors on a research project publication does not establish how that research has national or even global implications

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    it provides little help for us to determine a fact in issue and it bears minimal probative value for establishing whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    they bear minimal probative value to this prong and we need not address them further
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    bears limited probative value regarding the significance of the Petitioner's contributions to the research funded by the grant
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Citations insufficient · p1citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters conclusory · p1letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
249coded 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

AAO characterized SCOPS' erroneous citation to the vacated NYSDOT framework and conflation of second-prong language into the first-prong analysis as harmless error, since the substance of SCOPS' reasoning tracked Dhanasar's first-prong requirement. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's procedural argument that SCOPS failed to adequately explain its denial under USCIS Policy Manual E.9(B)(3), finding SCOPS need not address every piece of evidence in writing.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-R-E-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Record failed to show the specific proposed endeavor (not just the field or industry) had broader national or global implications; evidence was generalized, conclusory, or tied to petitioner's role in others' research rather than the endeavor's independent impact.

Transferable lesson

Tie evidence directly to the specific endeavor's prospective scale and broader implications (national/global impact, job creation, economic effects), not the general importance of the field or petitioner's credentials.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles