dismissedOCT022025_08B52032025-10-02 · 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.

A quantitative analyst working at major U.S. investment banks claimed on appeal that his proposed endeavor was to develop AI-enabled platforms for real-time investment decisions, risk modeling, and financial product design, though his initial filing described the endeavor as a continuation of his existing employment duties.

Field: quantitative finance / investment banking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The result is an inconsistent and changing basis for the activity that the Petitioner intends to comprise his eligibility for the job offer waiver portion of this petition.”

“The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors; a petitioner must identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake.”

“he continues to focus on the imp01iance of the industry and occupation in general, rather than the importance of his own specific proposed endeavor.”

“Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by Dhanasar's first prong, he has not demonstrated eligibility for an NIW”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner does not identify any particular evidence that was ignored while also explaining how a lack of analysis ... would have swung the pendulum in his favor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

1,581coded 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

The AAO treats the inconsistency between the initial-filing description of the endeavor (continuation of existing quantitative-analyst employment) and the appeal's reframing (developing AI-enabled financial platforms) as an independent, alternative basis for denial, separate from and in addition to the substantive national-importance failure under prong one; both bases are stated to be independently dispositive.

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 Ho
Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer