This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The petitioner, a biostatistician, initially proposed to continue biostatistics and data science research related to epilepsy, suicide, and pharmaceutical sciences, and later, in response to an RFE, described a new endeavor developing non-opioid pain medications through clinical trials at a pharmaceutical company.
Field: biostatistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her master's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not clearly define her proposed endeavor with the initial filing.”
“The evidence in the record does not establish that, at the time of filing, the Petitioner possessed a "specific endeavor that [she] proposes to undertake,"”
“Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently described her proposed endeavor as of the time of filing, we are unable to ascertain either its substantial merit or its national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“This impedes our ability to ascertain not just its substantial merit and national importance, but also whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.”
“it is not sufficient to show either a record of success in related or similar efforts, nor does the record show sufficient interest of potential users, investors, or other relevant entities in her work”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner obtained funding for and then led research projects”
“the record is not sufficient to demonstrate, in her current job as a biostatistician with a pharmaceutical company, the extent of her role in the clinical projects described”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner obtained funding for and then led research projects”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record is not sufficient to demonstrate...the extent of her role in the clinical projects described”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO withdrew SCOPS' favorable finding on prong 1 (material change doctrine): the petitioner tried to substitute a new endeavor (non-opioid pain medication clinical trials) discovered post-filing for the vague endeavor described at filing, invoking Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak's time-of-filing rule to reject the new facts.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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