The Petitioner, a physician, proposed to work as a professor and academic researcher in obstetrics and gynecology at a U.S. university, developing pedagogical materials and teaching techniques (e.g., low-cost anatomical models, assessment tools) for medical education.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record does not establish that her teaching work would impact her field of obstetrics and gynecology or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her students and her employer”

“we do not agree that her proposed endeavor relating to her teaching activities as a professor to medical students has national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

“the record does not show these presentations led to use of her academic research and pedagogical materials outside of her students and immediate co-workers”

“the record does not show that the published materials and the teaching methods and materials discussed in the publications have been used by others in the field”

“the record does not show the Petitioner's materials or teaching techniques have been used in the field outside of students, or that other academic institutions have an interest in using her materials and techniques”

“The Petitioner has not shown that her research and development of pedagogical materials and teaching techniques have served as an impetus for significant progress in the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not show that the Petitioner's research methods and developed materials have been used outside of her classroom or the university”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the record does not show that the published materials and the teaching methods and materials discussed in the publications have been used by others in the field”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO split the prong-1 analysis within a single endeavor description, finding the teaching component lacked national importance while the academic-research component (pedagogical materials development) satisfied it; nonetheless dismissed on prong 2 as dispositive and declined to reach prong 3.

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