A doctoral student in electrical engineering proposed to continue his research on integrating renewable energy sources into the U.S. power grid and improving grid resilience, first while completing his PhD and then as a postdoctoral researcher at the same university.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“Simply conducting research or being employed in an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings.”

“the record does not demonstrate the improvements or advancements they assert come from their research endeavor have national or global impact or broader implications.”

“he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his future work at the school stands to affect the U.S. power grid.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not demonstrate the improvements or advancements they assert come from their research endeavor have national or global impact”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted
• citations publications · discounted
• funding · discounted

Where this case turned

• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO included a footnote advising that in any future NIW adjudication where the Petitioner claims he will continue his endeavor at the same university without a formal offer of employment, he must show he can continue the research without employment or funding — an unusual forward-looking guidance for a future filing.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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