The petitioner, a mechanical engineer pursuing a doctorate, proposed to design and model novel HVAC system components—particularly air-source heat pump defrost controllers—to improve efficiency, while conducting research and later working for a commercial HVAC manufacturer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement”

“SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not describe his proposed endeavor with sufficient specificity, as he did not explain "how he will divide his time between the various facets"”

“it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance”

“The Petitioner makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence, that his research would impact national government policies”

“SCOPS noted that the Petitioner's reliance on the importance of the field is insufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor is of national importance”

“merely citing to the Petitioner's work does not necessarily mean that others are utilizing his "innovations" or "recommendations" such that actual impact to the field may be established”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “Simply asserting the claim of contribution to the field does not persuasively establish actual contribution.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “merely citing to the Petitioner's work does not necessarily mean that others are utilizing his "innovations" or "recommendations"”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• 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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure, but included a footnote stating that even if it had reached those prongs, it would still have dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner presented no new evidence on appeal addressing SCOPS' findings on those prongs. The AAO also distinguished Buletini v. INS, holding that agencies need not individually address every piece of evidence submitted.

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)
• Buletini v. INS
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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