dismissedOCT072025_01B52032025-10-07 · 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 network software engineer, proposed to develop novel network routing, capacity planning, congestion control, and scheduling algorithms to enhance the efficiency and performance of large language model training across data center network infrastructure for cloud service enterprises.

Field: network software engineering / AI infrastructure · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree holder based on his doctorate in communications and networks.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not adequately explain how his proposed endeavor to develop novel network routing, capacity planning, congestion control, and scheduling algorithms for his employer or clients offers benefits that extend beyond his employer or clients”

“None of the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's name or his research work and do not discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's research work”

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“we find that the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the field overall or the company's supremacy in artificial intelligence infrastructure with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

“the record lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Petitioner's claims, to quantify the claimed economic benefits for the United States, or to demonstrate "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not include sufficient information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its impact rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the federal policy objectives regarding artificial intelligence infrastructure do not directly address the Petitioner's specific proposed undertaking”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“None of the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's name or his research work”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the record lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the Petitioner's claims, to quantify the claimed economic benefits for the United States”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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

Petitioner argued SCOPS misidentified the endeavor by conflating it with his employment, but AAO rejected this, noting SCOPS directly quoted the endeavor as stated. AAO also relied on Dhanasar's own teaching-activity example to analogize the Petitioner's work as insufficiently broad in impact.

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
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer