The Petitioner, a doctoral student in computer science/AI, proposed to employ advanced AI and machine learning techniques to optimize data analysis and software engineering methods, with applications aimed at advancing healthcare, smart cities, and education.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's assertion that his overall citation rate...reflects a record of success or a level of interest in his work sufficient to be a significant positive factor”

“this data does not demonstrate a particularly strong citation history or otherwise document a sufficient record of success to support the Petitioner's assertion that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor”

“Dr. M's letter does not contain sufficient specifics, nor does the record contain supporting evidence, to corroborate that the Petitioner's model was adopted by the mobile device industry”

“the letter does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor and is not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence”

“the evidence shows NSF's interest in research projects in which the Petitioner was a participant but does not contain sufficient information pertaining to these grants or his individual contributions”

“the Petitioner offers no explanation or evidence of how he will advance his endeavor beyond stating that he will complete his Ph.D. at some unspecified date”

“the Petitioner has not shown how the quantity or quality of his participation in the widespread peer review process to date represents a record of success”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“for the reasons discussed above, the record does not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor”

“the need for his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant foregoing the labor certification process”

“his skills, training, and experience in the AI field is of such value that, on balance, they outweigh the national interest in protecting the U.S. workforce through the labor certification process”

“he has not demonstrated that our determination on the third prong was based on an incorrect application of the referenced USCIS policy guidance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “the record does not contain sufficient probative and corroborating evidence”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not contain sufficient specifics...to corroborate that the Petitioner's model was adopted”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “does not contain sufficient information pertaining to these grants or his individual contributions”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “these later citations documented on motion cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown how the quantity or quality of his participation in the widespread peer review process...represents a record of success”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• Strong positive factor rejected · p3 — the STEM critical-and-emerging-technology factor was claimed but not accepted on the record
• Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
• U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

Notable

The AAO rejected several novel bibliometric arguments on motion (Clarivate Analytics baseline citation data, OpenAlex author percentile metrics, and a Scientometrics methodology article), finding the underlying data itself showed citation counts were 'highly skewed' and thus not probative, and separately finding new post-filing citation data inadmissible under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12). The Petitioner also unsuccessfully argued that peer-review service alone constituted 'evidence of extraordinary ability,' which the AAO characterized as reliance on a different classification's standards. The AAO also rejected the Petitioner's STEM PhD 'strong positive factor' argument under Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), noting the record did not establish he held a STEM PhD or otherwise met the combination of factors.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Coelho

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