NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB192026_01B52032026-02-19 · 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 implement advanced AI and machine learning solutions for insurance risk assessment, claims processing, and information systems to enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and security of the U.S. insurance industry. He intended to pursue a lead software engineer position at a U.S. insurance provider while conducting research on next-generation AI/ML systems for policy underwriting and automated decision-making.

Field: artificial intelligence and machine learning for insurance risk assessment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found and AAO confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree via a bachelor's degree in software engineering plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, equivalent to a master's degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific model has been utilized in the insurance industry.
did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned
the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science, including AI and machine learning.
none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
He has not demonstrated, however, that his IEEE membership category represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

the Petitioner, however, did not specifically explain why a U.S. insurance provider is unable to file a labor certification on his behalf.
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that his AI or machine learning contributions supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply
The Petitioner has not shown that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    He has not demonstrated, however, that his IEEE membership category represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    That a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • certification membership · p2certifications or memberships offered as proof of standing
  • Citations insufficient · p2citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Education alone insufficient · p2degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Letters conclusory · p2letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Record of success insufficient · p2a claimed track record the documents do not establish
  • Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
  • Urgency not established · p3no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
  • U.S. worker availability · p3the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
4coded 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 reversed SCOPS on both prong 1 (national importance) and prong 2, then independently found prong 2 failed — an unusual posture where AAO grants more than SCOPS on prong 1 but still dismisses. The decision explicitly notes the Petitioner misrepresented holding an 'advanced degree' when he holds only a bachelor's plus experience equivalent. The AAO also flagged a methodological flaw in the citation percentile analysis: the Clarivate Analytics baseline data (October 2024) was not contemporaneous with the Google Scholar citation counts (February 2025), and the Petitioner failed to account for self-citations or confirm that computer-science-wide citation norms apply to the AI/ML subfield. Both prong 2 and prong 3 failures were stated as independent and alternate bases for dismissal.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prongs two and three: no evidence of a record of success, industry adoption, or interest from relevant entities showing he is well positioned, and no showing that his contributions outweigh labor certification protections.

Transferable lesson

Support prong 2 with concrete evidence of adoption, industry interest, or demonstrable progress—not just citation counts or credential-based letters—and directly address why labor certification is impractical or outweighed.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_growth_generic · critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles