dismissedOCT182024_02B52032024-10-18 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 computer science professor, proposed to practice the occupation of computer science, including STEM higher education, build 'manpower' in computing, and conduct research on the convergence of machine learning/AI and high performance computing.
Field: computer science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently described his proposed endeavor.”
“We agree with the Director's decision this is not a well-detailed description of a proposed endeavor.”
“We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner's inclusion of a consulting company constitutes a material change in the endeavor.”
“the general importance of the field of computer science does not confer national importance on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“the evidence does not establish how the intention to fill a single position would have a national impact on this claimed shortage”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters of recommendation mainly address the Petitioner's skills or past work.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this evidence... points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO invoked the material-change doctrine from Matter of Izummi (typically an EB-5 case) to exclude a consulting company the Petitioner added in his RFE response, refusing to consider it in the national importance analysis.
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)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
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