The petitioner, a cryptography researcher pursuing a Ph.D., proposed to develop advanced cryptographic tools to build secure, privacy-preserving communication protocols for internet applications such as machine learning systems, messaging, and distributed ledgers.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“we conclude that the proposed endeavor has a potential prospective impact that rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the record does not contain evidence, other than the Petitioner's own statement, related to the postdoctoral position, such as a job offer letter or other information about the position”

“the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence of pursuing this employment or any specific steps taken toward achieving employment”

“the record does not establish the parameters of these grant awards; for example, the record does not show whether the Petitioner applied for and received this funding for his research”

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“the Petitioner has not established that his skills, training, and experience in the field of cryptography are of such value that, on balance, they outweigh the national interest in protecting the national workforce”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second Dhanasar prong”

“a petitioner must go beyond showing expertise 'significantly above that ordinarily encountered' in their field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• funding · discounted

  “the record does not establish the parameters of these grant awards”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · credited
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “the record does not contain evidence, other than the Petitioner's own statement, related to the postdoctoral position”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

Notable

AAO reversed SCOPS on prong 1 (finding national importance established) but still dismissed the appeal after independently finding prongs 2 and 3 unmet, with the prong 3 impracticality-of-labor-certification argument expressly tied back to the prong 2 well-positioned failure (cross-prong reasoning).

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)

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