NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR292026_02B52032026-04-29 · appeal · SCOPS 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 research engineer with a doctorate in mechanical engineering, proposed to continue research on modeling, developing, and optimizing HVAC&R systems to improve building energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and develop LLM-based tools, advanced refrigerant leak detection sensors, and thermal management solutions for battery energy storage systems.

Field: mechanical engineering / HVAC&R systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS properly determined the Petitioner met the underlying requirements for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor of researching, modeling, developing, and optimizing HVAC&R systems to bolster energy efficiency is of national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the advisor summarily states that the Petitioner's research advanced the field of mechanical engineering and revolutionized the field through innovative research technologies, without providing sufficient detail explaining how he advanced or revolutionized the field”
“the professor at [redacted] claims that he relied on the Petitioner's research findings in the development of his own methodology but does not explain what findings he relied upon”
“the Petitioner did not provide context for his citation rate to demonstrate it amounts to a strong citation history or that it has generated interest among others in the field.”
“the articles cite data compiled in his study, and/or summarize the findings of his study in a sentence or two without more discussion.”
“he has not provided documentary evidence establishing his ability to continue his current employment.”
“he has not established that he has received any funding for his proposed endeavor.”
“The funding for the Petitioner's past research by the DOE, for instance, was awarded to the Petitioner's prior and current employer.”
“the Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate feasible plans for financial support.”
“a degree is but one factor we consider in determining whether a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “summarily states that the Petitioner's research advanced the field of mechanical engineering and revolutionized the field through innovative research technologies, without providing sufficient detail”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide context for his citation rate to demonstrate it amounts to a strong citation history or that it has generated interest among others in the field.”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the articles cite data compiled in his study, and/or summarize the findings of his study in a sentence or two without more discussion.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not submit the requirements he had to meet to become a reviewer to support these statements and the Petitioner's evidence does not corroborate such claimed expertise.”
    AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
  • funding · discounted
    “The funding for the Petitioner's past research by the DOE, for instance, was awarded to the Petitioner's prior and current employer.”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “he has not provided documentary evidence establishing his ability to continue his current employment.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the printout does not contain an explanation of the methodology of the ranking system or what the value assigned to the journals represent.”
    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
1,312coded 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

Unusually, SCOPS found prong 1 not met but prong 2 met (without analysis); the AAO reversed both determinations on appeal — finding prong 1 satisfied but withdrawing SCOPS' prong 2 finding and concluding prong 2 was not met. The AAO explicitly noted the petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor is distinct from his employment, then used that distinction against him by finding he had not shown how he would fund or advance the endeavor independently of his employer. The DOE funding comparison to Dhanasar is notably detailed.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed Dhanasar prong 2: letters and citation evidence lacked specificity/corroboration of expertise, no funding or documented plan tying him to the endeavor absent his job.

Transferable lesson

Even with strong national-importance evidence, secure detailed, corroborated expert letters and concrete funding/plans linking your own record to the specific endeavor, not just credentials.

Endeavor framing

specific

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · public_health · national_security · field_advancement · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer