The petitioner sought to continue research developing statistical, machine-learning, and AI-driven methodologies optimized for big data to improve estimation and prediction, with applications in sectors such as finance and public health.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record contains an employment agreement with confidentiality and non-competition terms that belie that claim”

“simply working in STEM fields and with critical and emerging technologies alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor”

“the relevant evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects”

“E-J-T-T-, A-K-K-, and L-L- do not identify or address her specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not identify or address her specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “does not, however, establish the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

In a footnote, the AAO flagged unresolved concerns under prong two—that non-competition and confidentiality clauses in the petitioner's employment agreement could impede her ability to advance the endeavor—but expressly declined to address them further since the appeal already failed on prong one, cautioning the petitioner to be prepared to address this in future filings. The decision uses initials rather than names for the petitioner's employer and reference-letter writers to protect privacy.

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. 103.5
• Buletini v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of E-M-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod