NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB262026_01B52032026-02-26 · 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 biotechnology researcher, proposed to develop and enhance genomic editing tools for disease modeling and gene therapy to advance clinical management of chronic conditions including neurodegenerative, psychological, and autoimmune disorders.

Field: biotechnology / genomic editing / gene therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found and AAO agreed that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on a master's degree in biotechnology and bioinformatics.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to important issues does not establish national importance as it does not demonstrate her proposed endeavor's prospective impact.”
“The relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support her claims of economic impact and thus we cannot conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects.”
“Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the 'national importance' element of the first prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “the articles demonstrate the impact of these diseases, but they do not establish the proposed endeavor's impact.”
    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
  • funding · discounted
    “the record includes evidence that this funding was for projects the Petitioner previously worked on... this evidence does not relate to the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
    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
  • 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 withdrew SCOPS's finding of national importance on de novo review, reversing a determination that had been favorable to the petitioner at the service center level. The AAO found substantial merit but not national importance under prong 1, distinguishing between the importance of the field/industry and the prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor. Prongs 2 and 3 were expressly reserved under INS v. Bagamasbad.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Evidence (disease-prevalence articles, recommendation letters, funding history) demonstrated importance of the field and petitioner's past work, not the prospective national-scale impact of the specific proposed endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Tie corroborating evidence (letters, funding, statistics) explicitly to the forward-looking impact of the specific proposed endeavor, not to industry importance or past accomplishments.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer