The Petitioner, a research scientist with a master's degree in electrical and computer engineering, proposed to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for mobile sensing (wearables and IoT devices), focusing on improved privacy protection, intending to pursue this work as a research scientist at a leading technology company such as Apple.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“we conclude that the proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“we withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner did not establish the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record lacks sufficient evidence relating to the Petitioner's progress in pursuing such a position and lacks specificity regarding whether such a position would sufficiently enable the Petitioner to pursue his endeavor.”

“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of communications demonstrating interest from prospective employers, evidence regarding potential offers, or details regarding what duties a potential position would entail.”

“the record lacks evidence to demonstrate other types of interest, such as interest from potential customers, users, investors, employers, or other relevant entities”

“they are not sufficient to overcome the lack of evidence to demonstrate a model or plan for future activities”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · credited
• recommendation letter · credited
• resume experience · credited
• degree · credited
• business plan · discounted

  “the record lacks sufficient evidence relating to the Petitioner's progress in pursuing such a position and lacks specificity”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

Notable

The AAO expressly withdrew SCOPS' adverse finding on prong 1, finding national importance established, but still dismissed the appeal solely on prong 2 for lack of progress/plan evidence tied to the Petitioner's stated intent to work at a specific tech employer (e.g., Apple), and expressly reserved prong 3 under Bagamasbad. A footnote notes that possessing a Ph.D. in a STEM field tied to a critical/emerging technology would be an 'especially positive factor' under Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), though not required.

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.

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