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 proposed to work as a senior software engineer developing generative AI models/frameworks aimed at reducing computational complexity, intended to be open-sourced for use in finance, healthcare, and transportation applications.
Field: software engineering / machine learning and artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner is an advanced degree professional; not at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“STEM activities which do not impact a field more broadly are not of national importance.”
“SCOPS correctly noted that under the Dhanasar framework, it is not the importance of the field but the specific proposed endeavor that is relevant.”
“SCOPS acknowledged that while his endeavor could be valuable to his employer, the evidence was insufficient to establish that it would impact his field or our economy more broadly”
“there was no evidence of interest in his proposed endeavor from U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“expert letters are advisory in nature”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“it is not the importance of the field but the specific proposed endeavor that is relevant”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the blurry quality of the scanned documents...impacts the probative value of this evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not clearly explain what these contributions mean to its development”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed SCOPS' decision under Matter of Burbano; addressed and rejected Petitioner's procedural challenge to a second RFE as not constituting abuse of discretion, citing USCIS Policy Manual provisions on follow-up RFEs. Also declined to reach prong three as unnecessary given dispositive prong one failure.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod