NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB232026_02B52032026-02-23 · 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 continue research and development of AI-driven driver monitoring and accident prevention technologies for autonomous vehicles in the United States, including prototype development, regulatory collaboration, and industry advocacy.

Field: autonomous vehicles / automotive AI engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the Petitioner did not further elaborate and did not specifically indicate and describe what type of research he planned to conduct or what type of technology he intended to develop.
The Petitioner's broad, general claims do not satisfy Dhanasar's requirement of a specific proposed endeavor.
the Petitioner broadly identified various areas of AV and AI without providing particulars that sufficiently satisfies a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated under Dhanasar.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    provides one, two, and five-year plans without containing sufficient information reflecting a specific proposed endeavor
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
1,581coded 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 withdrew SCOPS's prior finding that the endeavor had substantial merit, holding that no prong analysis is possible without a sufficiently specific proposed endeavor. The dispositive failure was the vagueness of the endeavor itself, which precluded analysis of all three Dhanasar prongs. The AAO stated each basis was 'an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' though only the vague-endeavor deficiency was substantively analyzed.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to articulate a sufficiently specific proposed endeavor; without it, prongs one through three could not be assessed, making dismissal independently justified.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor as a concrete undertaking with clear mechanism, deliverables, and scope—not aspirational multi-year plans or broad topic areas.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · public_health · us_competitiveness · government_interest

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles