The Petitioner, an aerospace/mathematics engineer with multiple master's degrees, proposed to work on defense-related engineering projects (e.g., aircraft, missile, and spacecraft design) and to continue teaching mathematics and STEM courses at colleges and universities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the Petitioner does not offer sufficient detail regarding his specific proposed engineering work to demonstrate that it will advance research initiatives, impact the field of aerospace engineering research more broadly, or otherwise have implications rising to the level of having national importance”

“The record, however, does not establish that his course instruction would impact his endeavor more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the students at the institution where he teaches.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“neither recommender explains the significance of this project or the Petitioner's contribution, nor does the record indicate that he disseminated his work in the field”

“the references offer prospective opinions that the Petitioner's background and skills will make him a good teacher, they do not speak to his actual experience as a teacher”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “neither recommender explains the significance of this project or the Petitioner's contribution”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• certification membership · discounted

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

The decision's opening line states 'we will deny the motion' even though the case is styled as an appeal and the final order reads 'The appeal is dismissed'—an apparent drafting inconsistency. The AAO also expressly analogizes the Petitioner's teaching claim to its own facts in Dhanasar, finding both insufficiently broad in impact.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)

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