dismissedAUG312022_03B52032022-08-31 · combined · Texas 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 researcher who moved into semiconductor device engineering, proposed to continue research on sensing technologies and airborne particle detection methods in the electrical engineering field.
Field: electrical/computer engineering (sensing and device research) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Evidence that the Petitioner creates after USCIS points out the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the petition will not be considered independent and objective evidence.”
“While citations to the Petitioner's articles corroborate that he has disseminated his findings, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has been influential among engineering researchers”
“The submitted documentation does not list the Petitioner as a researcher nor does it demonstrate that the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining DARPA fonding for their research project.”
“neither offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's technology has generated positive interest among relevant parties, has been implemented in the pharmaceutical or electrical engineering industries, or otherwise reflects a record of success in his area of research.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“did not provide adequate context of the significance of the Petitioner's solutions or techniques”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has been influential among engineering researchers”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“does not demonstrate that the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining DARPA fonding”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Resubmitting previously provided evidence or reasserting previously stated facts does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
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 explicitly discounted supplemental 'explanatory' letters solicited by the Petitioner after the prior denial, reasoning that evidence created in response to identified deficiencies raises credibility concerns and cannot be considered independent and objective evidence; this reasoning was central to rejecting the motion to reopen.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 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