NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB192026_03B52032026-02-19 · 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, a data scientist, proposed to operate his own company providing predictive analytics and STEM career development services to small businesses, while also continuing employment as a senior manager of program management at a healthcare technology company to advance clinical trials, personalized healthcare, and disease monitoring.

Field: data science / healthcare technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO both agreed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (master of science in data science).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake.'”
“the record lacks specific details on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how he intends to create jobs and impact the economy.”
“the Petitioner does not include information about what types of jobs his specific proposed endeavor will create, where they will be created, how many jobs he will create”
“the evidence here shows the services the Petitioner intends to provide to his direct clients, but it does not establish how his services will impact the field more broadly”
“the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's employer, but rather the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“This evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner as a single employee in this role would affect the industry more broadly to rise to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “the reports and articles in the record do not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the record lacks specific details on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how he intends to create jobs and impact the economy.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “evidence of the Petitioner's past success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar's prong two analysis... It does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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
  • 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 AAO found substantial merit under prong 1 but denied on national importance alone, explicitly reserving prongs 2 and 3. The decision draws a direct analogy to the teaching-activities example in Dhanasar itself (26 I&N Dec. at 893) to explain why client-facing analytics services do not rise to national importance. The decision also notes that evidence of the employer's projects and the petitioner's employer recommendation letter were more relevant to prong 2 than prong 1, signaling they might have been credited under a different prong had prong 1 been satisfied. The decision was issued by SCOPS (Service Center Operations) rather than a named service center.

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 national importance of his SPECIFIC endeavor, relying instead on importance of his field/industry/employer and his own credentials, not the endeavor's prospective broader impact.

Transferable lesson

Support national importance claims with concrete, endeavor-specific evidence of scale (jobs created, economic impact, field-wide effect)—not general industry importance or personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · public_health · us_competitiveness · government_interest

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer