dismissedAPR072025_08B52032025-04-07 · appeal · other 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 vision python engineer, proposed to continue working for her current employer while conducting AI research applying advanced techniques to computer vision, energy systems, industrial fault detection, and medical image analysis.
Field: computer vision / artificial intelligence engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong.”
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance ofher proposed research, she has established that she meets the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
“Dr. S-C- does not offer specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the field or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
“he does not sufficiently establish when or how the Petitioner's work has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field.”
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not shown that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned”
“The Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by her published articles reflect a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong.”
“Nor does the evidence otherwise show her work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing her research.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not offer specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the field”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“does not confirm that her work has impacted or advanced the field of endeavor in such a way that renders her well position”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain supporting documentation from her employer identifying the specific research projects she intends to pursue”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
249coded 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
AAO withdrew the Director's negative prong 1 finding and credited national importance, but dismissed solely on prong 2, expressly declining to reach prong 3 citing Bagamasbad. Also noted that citations submitted post-filing via RFE could not establish eligibility at time of filing, and a claimed second master's degree lacked supporting documentation and was inconsistent with the ETA-9089.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod