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 behavioral economist, proposed to continue research developing intervention strategies and policy communication for health behavior, focusing on emotions, attention, and personal characteristics in decision-making among at-risk populations like older adults and cancer survivors.
Field: behavioral economics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his PhD in economics.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence in the record does not support these assertions”
“these reports establish that "[i]n 2021, American healthcare spending rose to an estimated $4.3 trillion,"”
“the record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will advance AI or human-machine interfaces to result in national or global implications within a particular field”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work”
“evidence of healthcare expenditures in the United States is not probative evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact”
“the record does not establish NSF has funded the research projects the Petitioner specified as his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the evidence in the record does not support these assertions”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“this evidence does not relate to the national importance of his proposed endeavor but relates to his prior experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters in the record focus on the impact of the Petitioner's prior work and not the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- 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 rejected the Petitioner's argument that funding from NSF and past field importance (including CET/AI applications and general field significance) established national importance, reiterating that past success/experience relates to prong two, not prong one's forward-looking national importance inquiry.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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