dismissedFEB022026_03B52032026-02-02 · appeal · SCOPS 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 petitioner proposed to develop and apply advanced machine learning and deep learning models to address challenges in climate modeling (specifically sea level rise forecasting), public health analytics, intelligent business chatbots, and recommendation systems optimized through knowledge distillation.

Field: machine learning / deep learning software engineering and research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both agreed the petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification based on a PhD in applied mathematics and statistics; threshold was not at issue on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake.'”

“the evidence in the record does not convincingly demonstrate that his activities and research have national or even global impact in his field, or broader implications rising to a level of national importance.”

“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will advance machine learning, deep learning, and planning, reasoning, and decision making to result in national or global implications within a particular field.”

“the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner does not submit documentation regarding the economic impact of the proposed endeavor.”

“the evidence of his work within the company does not establish a broader impact directly attributable to the Petitioner or his specific proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the evidence relating to the national importance of his intended research mostly explains his previous research and the importance of artificial intelligence.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not adequately shed light on how the research, development, and refinement of deep learning models to improve sea level prediction and recommendation systems would extend beyond the entities seeking out those services.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
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
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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 petitioner argued SCOPS erroneously conflated his proposed endeavor with his employment as a machine learning software engineer at his employer. The AAO found this argument undercut by the petitioner's own November 2024 statement, which described his employment duties as part of the proposed endeavor and stated that his employer's nationwide channels were how the endeavor would be promoted nationally. The AAO also addressed and rejected reliance on Buletini v. INS, clarifying that USCIS is not required to provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence so long as it gives reasoned consideration to the petition. The decision was decided by SCOPS (Service Center Operations) rather than a named service center, which is noted as the adjudicating body.

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.

USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific proposed endeavor (not his field, employer, or general AI importance) would have national or global implications; evidence was generic and credential-focused rather than endeavor-specific.

Transferable lesson

Detail the specific endeavor's mechanism and quantify its prospective national-scale impact; ensure support letters address the endeavor itself, not just the petitioner's skills.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer