NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT222024_02B52032024-10-22 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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 Beneficiary works as a Senior Data Scientist for her employer, developing AI/data models—including one predicting customers' likelihood of using mortgage services—to help the company identify and engage high-intent users and combat AI bias.

Field: data science / artificial intelligence in mortgage industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's position will have a broader impact on the field beyond the Petitioner's company and customers”
“The importance of the field does not determine the proposed endeavor's national importance.”
“the writer does not provide further explanation or basis for these claims beyond these sentences.”
“the Petitioner cannot rely on its market share alone to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the writer does not provide further explanation or basis for these claims beyond these sentences”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “they do not address the Beneficiary's specific work”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing”
    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

AAO noted one article evidencing the petitioner's AI work was published after the filing date and thus could not be considered under the material-fact-at-filing rule (8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12)).

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer