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 mechanical and aerospace engineer specializing in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), proposed to conduct fundamental research and develop numerical tools to analyze fluid flow problems, including aerothermal and turbomachinery challenges relevant to aviation safety and gas turbine efficiency.
Field: mechanical and aerospace engineering (computational fluid dynamics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director and AAO found the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. and master's in aerospace engineering); this was not contested on motion.
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“upon review we agree with the Petitioner's argument on motion that the evidence in the aggregate supports his assertion that his past work has found practical application in industry settings, rendering him well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“we find that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · credited
“the number of citations received by the Petitioner's five published articles did not reflect a level of interest in his work sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
AAO decision text - media · credited
- resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO reopened the motion sua sponte after issuing its original denial, in order to apply newly issued USCIS Policy Manual guidance (F.5(D)(2)) treating an advanced STEM PhD tied to a critical/emerging technology as an 'especially positive factor' under prong two; this led the AAO to reverse its own prior finding that the Petitioner failed prong two, and it went on to find prong three satisfied as well, sustaining the appeal it had previously dismissed.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
On reconsideration, AAO found aggregated expert letters and evidence of real-world implementation (military probe fix, gas turbine diffuser improvements) established petitioner well-positioned under prong two, reversing prior citation-based rejection.
Supplement citation counts with concrete evidence of real-world industry implementation and adoption to satisfy prong two even where academic citation impact is weak.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness · field_advancement
person_focused
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