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 quantitative analytics researcher with a Ph.D. in economics, proposed to continue developing novel mathematical models to analyze real-life data and generate improved economic forecasts.
Field: quantitative analytics / economics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D.).
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the evidence in this case is insufficient”
“she has not demonstrated that the citations to this work by researchers in medical fields shows a record of success”
“completing this work for her employer as part of a brief internship is not indicative of a record of success”
“the record does not include detailed information from that employer about her current and future work”
“her plan for future activities is not well-supported by detailed evidence of how she will advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the record lacks evidence that the Petitioner's work was published in either of these journals”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“completing this work for her employer as part of a brief internship is not indicative of a record of success”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record is not sufficient to show that her plan will position her to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
AAO reversed the Director's favorable national importance finding methodology but still found prong 1 met; the case turned entirely on prong 2, with detailed scrutiny of mismatched journal names cited by Petitioner (citing wrong journals that did not actually publish her work) and discounting of citation impact in unrelated medical fields.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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