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 risk manager by background, sought to found and lead an AI fraud-detection company that would develop algorithms to help fintech companies analyze financial data and detect fraudulent activity.
Field: AI-based fraud detection / risk management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional, and this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish the Petitioner's past experience renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
“as the authors of these letters have not met the Petitioner, the letters acknowledge their contents are based only on”
“her proven track record in developing sophisticated algorithms that significantly improve the accuracy and efficiency of fraud detection mechanisms”
“She has also not sufficiently shown her progress toward the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“do not demonstrate the Petitioner has experience as either an entrepreneur or algorithm-creator”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not specify the documents upon which they relied in forming their conclusions”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“do not establish that she has previously been an entrepreneur, owner, CEO, or founder in this field”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“do not demonstrate the Petitioner has experience as either an entrepreneur or algorithm-creator”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“do not demonstrate the Petitioner has experience as either an entrepreneur or algorithm-creator”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO expressly agreed with the Petitioner that prong 2 does not require showing influence on the field or a leading/critical/indispensable role, but still found the record insufficient; also discounted two 'independent advisory letters' from CEOs who had never met the Petitioner because their conclusory endorsements did not specify what documents they relied upon.
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
- 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