NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT092025_02B52032025-10-09 · 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, an AI/ML software engineer, proposed to design algorithms for on-device machine learning and ML error analysis to improve accuracy, performance, and safety of speech recognition and voice trigger systems.

Field: artificial intelligence / machine learning software engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; only the national interest waiver prongs were at issue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a petitioner's endeavor has national importance.”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
“Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its software engineering projects”
“the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · ignored
    “The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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 rejected the petitioner's argument that SCOPS improperly conflated his proposed endeavor with his employment, noting his ETA-9089 job duties were identical to his stated endeavor description. The decision also expressly reserved the second and third Dhanasar prongs as unnecessary given the dispositive first-prong failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.

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.

  • Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer