remandedSEP212021_03B52032021-09-21 · 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, employed as a statistical data analyst for a private university and its spin-off company, works on developing data analytics and machine learning algorithm techniques applied to certain industries, though the specific proposed endeavor was never clearly articulated.

Field: data analytics and machine learning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's role with respect to the projects she worked on, but it did not specifically identify the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor”

“none of this evidence describes with any specificity the proposed endeavor that the Beneficiary will undertake”

“the Petitioner did not identify the specific endeavor the Beneficiary seeks to pursue”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of this evidence describes with any specificity the proposed endeavor that the Beneficiary will undertake”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's area of research and described past projects where that research was utilized. However, the Petitioner did not identify the specific endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,619coded 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 remanded not because the endeavor lacked merit but because it was never adequately identified, faulting the Director both for failing to seek clarification via RFE and for not specifying evidentiary deficiencies as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i); AAO explicitly criticized the Director's prong-one finding as premature since the Director proceeded to analyze prongs two and three despite the unidentified endeavor.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
INA 203(b)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to identify the specific proposed endeavor; without this, no prong-1 analysis (merit/importance) could be conducted, so remand required clarification.

Transferable lesson

Clearly define a specific, forward-looking proposed endeavor (not just past roles/projects) before attempting to argue its national importance.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer