The petitioner, an archaeologist with a PhD in Islamic archaeology, proposed to research African American archaeology and compare it with Mamluk civilization to understand slavery's impact on communities and architecture, alongside teaching at a U.S. university and participating in media production.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the Petitioner's endeavors of teaching and media production do not include details specific enough for us to determine whether either has substantial merit or is of national importance”

“the Petitioner cannot materially change the proposed endeavor after submitting his petition”

“Without further evidence, the Petitioner's new employment with ... materially changes his initially indicated proposed endeavor and are not considered for this petition”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and he does not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

“they do not detail how the mentioned contributions and achievements demonstrate progress in his field or a record of success”

“the Petitioner does not explain how the professor's academic background in earth and ocean sciences is relevant to the Petitioner's field of archeology or is qualifying to express having the claimed expert opinion”

“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his plan for future activities renders him well-positioned”

“This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the third prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not detail how the mentioned contributions and achievements demonstrate progress in his field or a record of success”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “they do not show how his work represents a record of success or progress rending him well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “he did not submit his conference articles or other evidence explaining the conference presentations to understand whether they sufficiently relate to his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it is not clear from the record the extent of his peer review or whether his level of participation in the peer review process represented a record of success”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• 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 found the petitioner's research endeavor (comparing African American archaeology to Mamluk civilization) met prong 1's substantial merit and national importance, but found his teaching and media production components too vague to assess, and separately declined to consider his post-filing new employment as a material change to the proposed endeavor under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1).

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-

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