dismissedDEC082021_02B52032021-12-08 · combined · 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, an assistant professor, proposed to conduct research in geology and environmental sciences related to climate change and global warming, and to teach related coursework at U.S. universities.
Field: geology and environmental sciences · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the documentation submitted in support of the petition related to the Petitioner's past research rather than his future plans”
“the record did not include sufficient information or supporting documentation to corroborate in which of these varying proposed research areas he will work on in the United States”
“This evidence, however, does not show that the benefits of his instructional activities have broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to the students at the university where he intends to teach.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“it does not identify the research or teaching projects that the Petitioner plans to undertake”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently documented the future research projects he plans to undertake”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“our determination that Dr. Dhanasar was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his university affiliation or citation record”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“this documentation does not demonstrate new facts showing that he meets the "national importance" requirement of Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“it does not identify the research or teaching projects that the Petitioner plans to undertake”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
1,619coded 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
Petitioner argued AAO applied incorrect standard by creating a de facto job requirement and compared his credentials favorably to the petitioner in the Dhanasar precedent itself; AAO rejected this comparison, clarifying that Dhanasar's second-prong finding rested on funding and role significance, not university prestige or citation count alone.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
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