The Petitioner, a physician trained in Brazil, proposed to pursue medical research including spinal surgery treatments and cancer therapies (breast cancer brain metastases and NSCLC) through a fellowship program in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“SCOPS reached its findings based upon information and evidence that is not in the record.”

“the record lacks information about the studies that SCOPS references or these conclusions”

“Neither this statistic about breast cancer nor this information about the "Cancer Moonshot" initiative are in the record.”

“the information from the National Institutes of Health, this clinical trial, and the referenced treatment guidelines are not in the record.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“SCOPS did not analyze the evidence within the framework discussed in Matter of Dhanasar.”

“SCOPS also found that the support letters did not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned because they did not provide support for the claim that the Petitioner's work is nationally important, conflating the first prong analysis with the second.”

“whether the lack of specificity in the Petitioner's personal statement regarding his stated research goals... sufficiently demonstrate a "model or plan for future activities."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “did not demonstrate that his citation record is "exceptional compared to others in the field"”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “did not provide support for the claim that the Petitioner's work is nationally important”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p2 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts

Notable

Unusual remand ground: the AAO found SCOPS improperly relied on outside research and statistics (e.g., NIH data, clinical trial results, medical guidelines) not contained in the record to discount the petitioner's evidence, violating 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16)(i)'s notice requirement for derogatory information. The AAO also noted SCOPS had earlier stated in an RFE that national importance was established, then reversed course in the denial without notice.

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. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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