The petitioner proposed to develop novel semiconductor chips and integration methods for high-performance, low-cost, energy-efficient photonics and electronics systems used in telecommunications, transportation, computing, and sensing applications, initially at a major semiconductor company and later (after an RFE) as a postdoctoral researcher at a university lab.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“when we evaluate national importance, we evaluate the actual work the Petitioner will perform instead of the importance of the relevant industry or profession.”

“simple alignment or shared common aspects with national initiatives are not sufficient to meet the first prong's national importance requirement.”

“the record does not demonstrate how his endeavor has significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare, to broadly enhance cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study”

“a plan to create new computer chips and ways to connect them together so that devices used for communication, transportation, computing, and sensing work faster, cost less, and use less energy does not in itself sufficiently demonstrate how the proposed endeavor is likely to broadly influence the field.”

“his letter lacks any discussion of how and why the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a meaningful impact on the broader field, as Dhanasar's first prong requires.”

“she offered any salient details about it to substantiate his assertion that her letter establishes the national importance of his endeavor.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“We consider this a material change to the Petitioner's claims as he had not established eligibility at the time of filing, but sought to remedy the defect with materially different evidence after SCOPS put him on notice.”

“new claims or new material that greatly differs from that previous presented without a sufficient explanation will not carry sufficient evidentiary weight if the preponderant reasoning behind the change was to remedy a shortcoming.”

“We therefore withdraw SCOPS' favorable determination under Dhanasar's second prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “his letter lacks any discussion of how and why the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a meaningful impact on the broader field”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “she offered any salient details about it to substantiate his assertion that her letter establishes the national importance of his endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Unsupported assertions have little evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “Routine, marginal, or incremental contributions that merely expand the body of knowledge without broader ramifications are typically insufficient to satisfy Dhanasar's first prong.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “new claims or new material that greatly differs from that previous presented without a sufficient explanation will not carry sufficient evidentiary weight”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

Notable

The AAO took the unusual step of withdrawing SCOPS' favorable prong-2 determination on appeal, finding that the petitioner's mid-case shift from a named large semiconductor company to a university postdoctoral position (disclosed only in the RFE response) constituted a material change made solely to remedy a deficiency, and therefore insufficient to establish eligibility at the priority date. Both prong 1 and prong 2 failures were declared independent and alternative bases for dismissal. The decision also cites Matter of Jin, 29 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2026), a very recent BIA decision, and Matter of G-C-I-, 29 I&N Dec. 176 (BIA 2025), for general evidentiary principles.

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.

• Section 291 of the Act

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