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 proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-performing AI pipelines deployable in resource-constrained real-world scenarios, including camera systems, while also conducting collaborative academic research on AI efficiency and safety.
Field: artificial intelligence, machine learning, camera algorithms · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO both agreed the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. in Statistics).
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
“We withdraw SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized for public health monitoring.”
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science, including AI and machine learning.”
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
“none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
“he has not demonstrated, however, that his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field.”
“he does not elaborate on how their future AI research projects will be funded.”
“the record does not include a letter from Dr. R-Z- corroborating the Petitioner's claim or identifying their collaborative research projects.”
“while his Ph.D. renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized for public health monitoring.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the articles in the record cite to his work as an example of research done in the field or in their introduction section as part of an overview of current research.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“while his Ph.D. renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
- other · discounted
“he has not demonstrated, however, that his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter only briefly mentions the Petitioner's work dedicated to algorithm development and does not discuss his specific research projects relating to his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not indicate that their methods have been accepted and implemented by the academic community.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO partially reversed SCOPS, crediting prong 1 (national importance) while affirming denial on prong 2. AAO explicitly acknowledged SCOPS used problematic language requiring 'original contributions of major significance' but found the error not dispositive. AAO engaged in an unusually detailed critique of the Petitioner's bibliometric methodology, specifically rejecting use of Google Scholar for bibliometric analysis (citing a Scientometrics article the Petitioner himself submitted) and rejecting cross-field citation comparisons between AI/ML and the broader computer science field. AAO also noted the employment letter lacked company letterhead, logo, address, and phone number. The Petitioner made a comparative argument that his citation record exceeded that of Dr. Dhanasar himself, which the AAO rebutted by clarifying that citations were not the basis for the Dhanasar precedent decision's prong 2 finding.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong 2: evidence showed graduate research and citations but not a record of success, concrete funding role, or a viable, employer-supported plan to pursue the specific proposed endeavor.
For prong 2, submit employer/collaborator letters and plans tied specifically to the proposed endeavor's execution, not generic credential or citation evidence better suited to prong 1.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- 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
- The Petitioner, an industrial engineer with a doctoral degree in transportation engineering, proposes to continue resear