NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP172025_01B52032025-09-17 · 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 recent computer science PhD, proposed to continue research on domain-specific hardware accelerators, sparse matrix multiplication, graph computation, and machine learning to advance artificial intelligence, framing this as independent of his employment as a research scientist at a private company.

Field: computer science / computer architecture and AI hardware acceleration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“advancements in ... open-source large language model (LLM) ... could have an impact on the artificial intelligence (AI) field and improve LLM efficiency more broadly.”
“We therefore withdraw SCOPS' adverse decision under prong one and conclude that by establishing the substantive merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“academic accomplishments by themselves are not necessarily sufficient to establish that an alien is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor.”
“the supp01i letters do not adequately "discuss in detail the influence of [the Petitioner's] research throughout the field, showing that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor."”
“citation frequency-quantitative in nature-does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
“Such a presentation essentially amounts to an assertion, which does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof.”
“the record does not include evidence establishing that the Petitioner was the primary awardee or recipient of any grant funding, nor does the record reflect the amount of funding received.”
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his academic accomplishments are sufficient to carry his claims that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the supp01i letters do not adequately "discuss in detail the influence of [the Petitioner's] research throughout the field, showing that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor."”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “citation frequency-quantitative in nature-does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not include evidence establishing that the Petitioner was the primary awardee or recipient of any grant funding”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “academic accomplishments by themselves are not necessarily sufficient to establish that an alien is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “he hasn't established that he works for [employer] or what duties he performs for them.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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
271coded 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 scrutinized the petitioner's attempt to characterize his proposed research endeavor as separate from his private-sector job duties, ultimately treating the endeavor as encompassing either, but faulted him for failing to corroborate employer-related claims with any evidence from the employer itself. The decision also cites the recently issued Matter of G-C-I- (BIA 2025) for the proposition that unsupported assertions are not evidence, an unusually fresh citation for an AAO NIW decision.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer