The Petitioner sought to continue research on developing and deploying carbon capture and storage technologies and sustainable aviation fuels to promote environmental sustainability, first as a research associate and later as a graduate student researcher while pursuing a Ph.D.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not provide evidence, other than his own statement, related to this graduate student research position specifically, or to his Ph.D. program in general.”

“we conclude that the record does not provide sufficient details regarding the Petitioner's Ph.D. program, his claimed research position, or any progress towards achieving the endeavor, based on the Petitioner's statements alone.”

“the record does not establish that the Petitioner had any role in applying for and receiving this funding.”

“it does not support a finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based upon interest from relevant entities.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• citations publications · credited
• business plan · discounted

  “we conclude that the record does not sufficiently demonstrate these claims”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not establish that the Petitioner had any role in applying for and receiving this funding”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

Notable

The AAO distinguished the Petitioner's government-funded research from Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting the petitioner in Dhanasar was the primary award contact and sole listed researcher on many grants, whereas here the Petitioner's role in obtaining funding was unclear. The AAO also rejected the Petitioner's argument that SCOPS acted arbitrarily by applying different reasoning in the RFE versus the final decision, since the Petitioner failed to substantively rebut the underlying deficiencies on appeal.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland

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