NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG182025_01B52032025-08-18 · appeal

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 medical researcher, proposed to continue developing machine learning and statistical methods for disease classification/diagnosis, extracting insights from unstructured medical data, and evaluating treatment effectiveness to improve precision medicine and public health outcomes.

Field: biostatistics / machine learning in medical research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her PhD in Public Health (biostatistics).

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“SCOPS also concluded that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. We agree with these determinations.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be funded.”
“Because the 2024 NIH grant is dated after the Form I-140 filing date, it presents a new set of material facts that did not exist at the time of filing that cannot-and does not-establish eligibility.”
“the record does not establish the significance of authoring or co-authoring 27 publications in an eight-year period, as compared to other medical researchers.”
“it provides little support for the conclusion that the Petitioner's citation rate positions her well to advance her proposed endeavor.”
“the letters of recommendation generally indicate that the Petitioner has performed a support role in much of her research projects and activities.”
“they do not elaborate on when the Petitioner anticipates conducting any particular phase, the duration those phases would last, when the Petitioner would prepare results for publication”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • funding · discounted
    “presents a new set of material facts that did not exist at the time of filing that cannot-and does not-establish eligibility”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “provides little support for the conclusion that the Petitioner's citation rate positions her well to advance her proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “generally indicate that the Petitioner has performed a support role in much of her research projects and activities”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “do not elaborate on when the Petitioner anticipates conducting any particular phase”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the record does not establish the significance of authoring or co-authoring 27 publications in an eight-year period”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • degree · credited

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
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • 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
1,358coded 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 affirmed prong 1 satisfaction (agreeing with SCOPS) but dismissed on prong 2 alone; notable emphasis on Katigbak/Izummi rule barring post-filing NIH grant evidence, and skepticism toward unauthenticated Google Scholar citation printout under Matter of Ho.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles