A clinical laboratory scientist proposed to continue working as a medical lab scientist in the U.S. while developing AI-integrated predictive models to forecast and alleviate national blood-bank shortages.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We agree that SCOPS erred by focusing on the AI models' readiness for national deployment.”

“The Petitioner therefore has sufficiently demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the recommendation letters 'primarily focus on his broad expertise in laboratory science, education, and diagnostics, but they do not provide substantial evidence of specialized achievements, groundbreaking contributions, or leadership roles specifically within Immunohematology and Blood Banking.'”

“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has enough AI knowledge and ability to develop the proposed forecasting models on a national level.”

“he has not submitted evidence of his purported progress.”

“The record also lacks evidence of interest by potential users or investors in his proposed AI forecasting models.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not provide substantial evidence of specialized achievements, groundbreaking contributions, or leadership roles specifically within Immunohematology and Blood Banking”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “does not show that the petitioner possesses the advanced expertise ordinarily expected of someone who can lead a nationwide artificial intelligence initiative in blood banking”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “he has not submitted evidence of his purported progress”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has enough AI knowledge and ability to develop the proposed forecasting models on a national level.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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 expressly found SCOPS erred in its national-importance analysis by conflating endeavor readiness with national importance, reversing that finding, but still dismissed the appeal on the second (well-positioned) prong, reserving the third prong under 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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
• The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
• The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
• The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
• The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his