The Petitioner proposed to conduct research applying computer science and big-data/IoT methods to optimize business processes and organizational performance, while also pursuing a lecturer position at a U.S. university such as Harvard Business School.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's discussion of her proposed research is overly broad and lacks the specific details required to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”

“Other than her own assertions, the Petitioner has provided little evidence to support her claims that her work would be nationally important or have the tendency to influence her field of research.”

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's proposed research would impact the field of business or computer science in the United States more broadly.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the computer science or business fields.”

“she has not provided any evidence to show that she has received interest from any organization in the United States to take up such a position and perform her research”

“the Petitioner has not shown that she has secured fonding for her research, applied for grants, or engaged with the entities or individuals she wishes to study.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not specifically cite to the Petitioner's work”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “has not shown that she has secured fonding for her research, applied for grants”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “not shown that this work renders her well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• 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

AAO withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit but still found national importance unmet, and explicitly designated both the prong 1 and prong 2 failures as independent, alternate bases for dismissal (declining to reach prong 3). Repeated OCR artifact 'fonding' for 'funding' throughout the decision.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(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