The petitioner, a graduate research assistant pursuing a Ph.D. in information technology with a cybersecurity concentration, proposed to research and develop secure, robust, and privacy-preserving AI infrastructure—particularly in federated learning systems deployed in autonomous vehicles, robots, and wireless edge devices.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor has national importance. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or professional”

“the record does not sufficiently corroborate that his research or methodologies broadly impact the field of cybersecurity and artificial intelligence in autonomous vehicles.”

“Both letters claim that the Petitioner's research impacted 'the greater academic community' and 'contributed essential advancements to the field' but do not offer persuasive details”

“Other supporting documents such as the Biden administration's fact sheet and articles on the importance of cybersecurity issues of AI and autonomous vehicles, as well as STEM career generally discuss the field or the profession without specifically mentioning the Petitioner's endeavor's impact.”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor will extend beyond his graduate level research to impact the field at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of education puts him into a strong position to advance his proposed endeavor.”

“the evidence does not demonstrate that the published work that the Petitioner has contributed to has been cited frequently by independent researchers at a rate that is high relative to others in the field.”

“the Petitioner provided an email dated February 19, 2025, requesting demographic data from 'NSF-supported project.' As this email postdates the date of filing, we cannot consider 'facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.'”

“the Petitioner has not explained what type of entity is NuRamp and how prestigious or significant it is to receive funding from NuRamp.”

“the Petitioner has not explained the specific steps or plans for expanding his research and collaborating with federal research programs aside from his generalized assertions in his personal statements.”

“they are not sufficient to overcome the lack of evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities, his progress toward achieving the endeavor, or interest from potential investors or other relevant entities.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of education puts him into a strong position to advance his proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not offer persuasive details on how his research and methodologies impact the field of cybersecurity in autonomous vehicles overall.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the evidence does not demonstrate that the published work that the Petitioner has contributed to has been cited frequently by independent researchers at a rate that is high relative to others in the field.”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the evidence in the record does not support his assertion.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Record of success insufficient · p1 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

Notable

AAO withdrew two SCOPS findings in the petitioner's favor: (1) the EB-2 threshold denial (SCOPS incorrectly focused on whether 'cybersecurity researcher' is a profession rather than whether the degree exceeds a bachelor's), and (2) the finding that a properly completed Form ETA 9089 had been submitted (petitioner wrote 'N/A' throughout the educational and experience sections). AAO also noted it had previously erred in requesting outdated sections of Form ETA 9089. The decision explicitly allows cross-prong use of citation evidence, noting that citation data was relevant to both the endeavor's prospective impact under prong 1 and the record of success under prong 2. NSF funding evidence was rejected as post-filing; a $5,000 NuRamp award was discounted for lack of explanation of the entity's prestige.

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