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 medical research application developer, sought to continue developing software and data management tools for medical researchers, including a project with the CDC aimed at creating a scalable solution for collecting and exchanging health data across U.S. facilities.
Field: medical research software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO reversed the Director's finding; concluded Petitioner established exceptional ability, disagreeing with the Director's final merits determination that her work was too 'localized' and requiring her to be at the 'top of her field.'
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not establish the economic implications of her proposed endeavor and stated that its impact appeared to be localized to her employer.”
“we agree that the Director overemphasized whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic benefits on the U.S. economy and did not sufficiently consider whether it could have national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the Petitioner demonstrated with sufficient evidence that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor to develop another application related to the collection and exchange of health data”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
- media · discounted
“provided reports and articles were overly broad and did not reflect the national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO reversed both the exceptional ability threshold finding and the prong 2 finding, and remanded for reconsideration of prong 1 national importance (finding Director overemphasized economic impact vs. broader societal/technological/STEM benefits) and prong 3, citing STEM-specific policy manual factors as a 'strong positive factor' framework for remand consideration.
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.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director wrongly fixated on economic-impact evidence for national importance without weighing potential prospective impact on science, health, technology, or critical STEM fields; AAO remanded for proper reconsideration.
Frame national importance around STEM/health/technology significance and NIH/CDC-level engagement, not solely economic job-creation metrics, to avoid a narrow 'localized impact' finding.
moderate
economic_job_creation · public_health · field_advancement · critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod