The Petitioner sought to conduct research developing advanced computational fluid dynamics models integrated with material characterization methods to optimize additive manufacturing processes, focusing on molten pool behavior, keyhole dynamics, and defect control.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon evidence of the importance of the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support this assertion and thus we cannot conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• funding · discounted

  “this is not evidence of the prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as it does not demonstrate his endeavor's impact”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “this too is insufficient to establish the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the articles do not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance as they do not provide evidence of the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

In a footnote, the AAO itself corrects SCOPS's reasoning, agreeing the Petitioner was right that SCOPS erred regarding governmental funding of the endeavor, but reclassifying that argument as relevant to prong two (well-positioned) rather than prong one (national importance)—an unusual instance of AAO siding partly with the petitioner on a sub-issue while still finding against him on the ultimate prong. The AAO also explicitly declined to reach prongs two and three under INS v. 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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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