The Petitioner, a Ph.D. student in civil engineering, proposed to advance high-fidelity, cyber-secure train positioning and sensor-fusion algorithms to improve safety, automation, and resilience of U.S. rail infrastructure. He described multiple potential implementation paths including continued software engineering employment, independent consulting, and possibly founding a company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner presented inconsistent evidence regarding how he intends to implement the endeavor, which impedes our ability to ascertain its potential prospective impact.”

“the Petitioner's continued restatements and clarifications of the proposed endeavor do not demonstrate that the Petitioner possessed a focused, single proposed endeavor at the time of filing.”

“the Petitioner has not established how he will implement the endeavor and therefore has not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact rises to the level of national importance.”

“he has not consistently nor clearly explained how he intends to pursue his endeavor, therefore has not and sufficiently supported his claims that his proposed endeavor has the potential to have the claimed impact.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide an explanation for why he presented a professional plan which states that he will do so.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work at this company is related to improving U.S. railway safety or security.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's continued restatements and clarifications of the proposed endeavor do not demonstrate that the Petitioner possessed a focused, single proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO found the endeavor vague primarily because the Petitioner offered three shifting and inconsistent descriptions of the proposed endeavor across the initial filing, RFE response, and appeal brief, and because the submitted 'EB2 Professional Plan' described founding a company while the Petitioner simultaneously disclaimed entrepreneurial intent on appeal. The AAO acknowledged the genuine national importance of rail cybersecurity and modernization as a field but held that field importance cannot substitute for a clearly defined and consistently articulated individual endeavor. P2 and P3 were expressly reserved under INS v. Bagamasbad.

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