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, an environmental engineering analyst, proposed to develop a mobile application and website using hyperspectral satellite imagery, AI, and machine learning to generate environmental and topographical data insights for agriculture, oil and gas, transportation, and construction industries.
Field: environmental engineering / information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the mobile application and website will provide information not already otherwise accessible to those companies”
“the record does not establish concrete, quantifiable effects in any particular location, in order to determine whether those effects may be substantial in context”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the opinion letter bears minimal probative value because its unsubstantiated and conclusory statements provide little help in understanding evidence”
“the signatures on the letters of recommendation bear characteristics that cast doubt on whether they were actually signed by the purported letter authors”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not inform how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the letter bears minimal probative value because its unsubstantiated and conclusory statements provide little help”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“do not demonstrate how the petitioner's projects have national or global implications in the field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish that the mobile application and website will provide information not already otherwise accessible”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- NEW signature authenticity doubt · p1
- 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
The AAO devoted extensive analysis to questioning the authenticity of signatures on recommendation letters (pixelation, mismatched background boxes, orphaned signature pages), an evidentiary integrity issue not captured by the standard failure-code vocabulary. It also rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Executive Orders 14008, 13990, 14057, and 14110, noting these had been revoked by EO 14148 and 14154 signed January 20, 2025, undermining the 'aligns with national initiatives' argument. SCOPS never addressed threshold EB-2 eligibility, and the AAO expressly declined to reach it given the dispositive prong-one failure.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers