The Petitioner, a part-time adjunct chemistry instructor and volunteer post-doctoral research affiliate, proposed to continue research involving conformational analysis and computational chemistry related to cancer treatment and molecular design.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that significant unresolved questions exist concerning the particulars of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“Here, the information provided by the Petitioner on motion did not clarify or provide more specificity to the proposed endeavor as initially described, but rather changed its focus.”

“we must withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the evidence did not persuasively demonstrate that the Petitioner had a record of success in his field, nor did it show that the Petitioner had a research position or funding with which to advance the proposed endeavor”

“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The letters described new research topics that differ from the Petitioner's previously-articulated research focus.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The initial filing predominantly provided details concerning the Petitioner's past research work but contained very little information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “USCIS would not consider evidence that came into being only subsequent to a petition filing.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO questioned whether Petitioner selected the correct SOC occupational code (Bioengineers vs. Biochemists), and found that the petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor on motion, invoking Matter of Izummi's prohibition on material changes; the decision explicitly frames each failure as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
• The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
• The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
• The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
• The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl