dismissedAUG312026_01B52032026-08-31 · appeal · other 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.

Develop and disseminate predictive AI and causal inference systems that address medication non-adherence and optimize healthcare resource allocation, primarily through his work as a senior data scientist on a nationwide pharmacy platform.

Field: healthcare data science / predictive and causal analytics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's work in an important industry or sector, even one that is the subject of national priorities, is not sufficient, in and of itself”

“the main benefits of this work, which the Petitioner concedes is proprietary, appears to flow to the employer and its customers”

“they are largely conclusory in nature and do not provide a sufficient basis for their claims”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

other · discounted
“they do not establish how his work would specifically impact these areas more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“has provided little detailed explanation or corroborating evidence specifically illustrating how the Petitioner's proposed work would produce the claimed broader impacts”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“the record does not illustrate how this one publication demonstrates that his proposed endeavor would affect his industry or field”
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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

777coded 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

Decision issued by SCOPS, which had found prong 2 met. Petitioner invoked his employer platform's reach to over 100 million Americans and models credited with 1-2 million additional prescriptions and $2 million savings; AAO held proprietary, team-based employer results cannot be borrowed for national importance and noted the record did not isolate his individual role. A plan to publish white papers and synthetic benchmarks was unexplained.

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
Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer