The Petitioner, a PhD computer scientist and non-tenure-track instructor, proposed to research machine learning and graph-based data mining applications (e.g., COVID-19 spread pattern analysis) while teaching and mentoring computer science students at a U.S. university.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“We adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it pertains to the second prong of the Dhansar framework.”

“As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar framework for the reasons stated in the Director's decision, we find that she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · credited
• media · discounted

  “The record is unclear as to whether University and University are same school or two different schools and why an article relating to a different school was submitted.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “we will not consider evidence submitted for the first time on appeal when the affected party did not properly respond to a director's notices relating to that evidence”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

On motion the AAO reversed its own prior finding on prong 1, holding (partly sua sponte via STEM policy manual guidance) that the endeavor now met the national importance standard, but nonetheless dismissed the case by adopting the Director's unelaborated second-prong denial via Matter of Burbano without independently restating specific second-prong deficiencies. The AAO also rejected reliance on a district court decision (Rubin v. Miller) as non-binding and factually distinguishable, and declined to consider letters first submitted on appeal under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Chen v. INS
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of O-S-G-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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