dismissedAUG182021_01B52032021-08-18 · appeal · Nebraska 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 postdoctoral fellow in chemical engineering, proposed to expand his research on fuel combustion breakdown mechanisms and property relationships to design fuels that could improve engine operational speed and load while leveraging environmentally-friendly features.
Field: chemical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record supp01is the Director's determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar's second prong.”
“did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has been utilized in chemical engineering or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field”
“he does not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research and other findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the field beyond being cited by others”
“This aiiicle, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 81 other references”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his coauthors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects.”
“not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“did not explain how this work has affected the industry or otherwise represents a record of success or progress”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“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 - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his coauthors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director.”
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
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
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 conducted a detailed statistical critique of the petitioner's citation metrics (Clarivate Analytics, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic percentile rankings), finding data non-contemporaneous and unreliable due to self-citation uncertainty and timing mismatches; also declined to consider post-decision letters submitted for the first time on appeal under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena.
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)
- 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