The Petitioner, a computer scientist, proposed to continue research in machine learning and sensor networks while also teaching computer science courses to students in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner, however, did not offer a specific proposed endeavor as required under Dhanasar.”

“Instead, the Petitioner broadly claimed that she plans "to advance the field of sensor network and machine learning to produce reliable predictions."”

“the record does not establish that her instructional work would impact the computer science field or the sensor network and machine learning industries more broadly”

“the Petitioner's proposed teaching activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “discussed the Petitioner's prior research and work without identifying or addressing her specific prospective endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not demonstrate the nexus between her unidentified proposed endeavor and the issues or discussed in the articles.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “we will not consider evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The contract makes no mention of the Petitioner conducting research, let alone any indication of a specific research”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The AAO declined to consider new reference letters submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and Matter of Obaigbena. The decision draws a direct comparison to the petitioner's specificity in Matter of Dhanasar itself to illustrate the vagueness deficiency. The AAO also expressly stated each stated reason was an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, though only prong one was substantively analyzed.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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