The Petitioner, a data scientist and doctoral candidate in information science, proposed to research ethical frameworks for AI development, focusing on fairness, transparency, privacy, and algorithmic bias.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The letters of support for generally speak to the importance of Al-powered technologies and the need for an ethical framework, not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its national importance.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing her limited professional contribution by working within a STEM profession.”

“The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her research to impact the field, or the U.S. economy, more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that she has made progress towards achieving her proposed endeavor or generated interest among relevant parties as required under Dhanasar.”

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

“the Petitioner has not shown that her past research has contributed to the profitabi Iity, efficiency, or decision making of an organization or entity.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The letters of support for generally speak to the importance of Al-powered technologies and the need for an ethical framework, not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “We will not consider new evidence for the first time on appeal.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “a paper which is not in the proposed endeavor field of Al ethics.”

  AAO decision text
• awards · discounted

  “an award for best poster as third author for on the subject of a paper which is not in the proposed endeavor field of Al ethics.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• 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

Case had extensive procedural history: SCOPS denied, denied motions to reopen/reconsider, AAO remanded, SCOPS denied again on remand, and this appeal followed. AAO twice invoked INS v. Bagamasbad to decline reaching additional issues (exceptional ability and prong three). AAO also declined to consider a Ph.D. transcript and dissertation award submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Furtado and related BIA precedent.

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
• 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