The Petitioner, a computer scientist, proposed a multi-pronged research/technology endeavor that he claimed could support U.S. national security, enhance economic competitiveness, and influence virtually all industries.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence did not establish national importance as he had not sufficiently demonstrated how, for example, his proposed endeavor would have a broader impact on the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“Although the Petitioner speaks of his work in grand terms, the record does not support his claims.”

“implies that all STEM endeavors should be considered to be of national importance”

“the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services by working within a STEM profession”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner is merely restating facts that have already been considered”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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

Notable

This is the Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen/reconsider after a prior appeal dismissal and prior combined motions dismissal; the AAO notes the Petitioner submitted essentially the same evidence each time and rejected his argument that all STEM endeavors are inherently of national importance, and rejected his conflation of prospective national importance with his own prior personal achievements (a second-prong concept).

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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
• The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
• The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp