The petitioner, a chemical and biomedical engineer with a PhD, proposed to investigate emerging pharmaceutics and analyze the patient journey from diagnosis to treatment to improve drug approval rates and access to medicine, working as a senior consultant conducting market research for pharmaceutical companies.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently establish how this demonstrates a record of success in "related or similar efforts" to that of the proposed endeavor”

“we conclude that this does not demonstrate on its own a record of success without other evidence, such as citations to his prior work that is related to the proposed endeavor, or persuasive letters of recommendation describing impact on the field”

“the record lacks a job description for the Petitioner's current position or a letter from his employer describing these projects or their support for his pursuit of the proposed endeavor”

“we disagree that continued citations to the Petitioner's prior research work constitutes the Petitioner's own progress”

“does not sufficiently demonstrate interest in the Petitioner himself pursuing the proposed endeavor”

“The statement that the Petitioner was "instrumental" lacks specificity and corroboration by other documentary evidence”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “does not appear to relate to investigating pharmaceuticals to improve medical treatment”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The statement that the Petitioner was "instrumental" lacks specificity and corroboration by other documentary evidence”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “does not sufficiently demonstrate interest in the Petitioner himself pursuing the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the record lacks a job description for the Petitioner's current position or a letter from his employer describing these projects”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• 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
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

The AAO emphasized that 122 of the Petitioner's 123 citations came from a single unrelated paper (on conductive wood for electromagnetic shielding) on which he was fifth author, undermining his claimed record of success in the proposed pharmaceutical endeavor. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland regarding the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication and expressly reserves judgment on prongs one and three under Bagamasbad.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution