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 doctoral researcher whose dissertation involved data-driven capital resource management for infrastructure, proposed to continue AI-focused research and, through a newly founded consulting company, apply AI tools to infrastructure, transportation, and healthcare data systems for public agencies nationwide.
Field: AI-driven infrastructure management, transportation, and urban data systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed activities and goals lack a clear focus and the record lacked sufficient details to establish the endeavor's prospective impact”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the Petitioner has not provided adequate details to show how his company will operate, whether his company has secured funding or contractual commitments to implement the research projects”
“the record lacks specific information with supporting documentation to support these assertions”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“his skills and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“it shows his past work has been recognized by other researchers in his field but does not establish the potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record lacks specific information with supporting documentation to support these assertions”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“whether his company has secured funding or contractual commitments to implement the research projects”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
Notable
AAO emphasized that evidence of eligibility arising after the filing date (the petitioner's completed Ph.D., new publications, and the newly formed consulting company) could not establish eligibility as of the filing date, citing Matter of Katigbak. The AAO also declined to reach prongs two and three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the proposition that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Katigbak
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl