dismissedDEC092025_03B52032025-12-09 · 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 graduate research assistant, proposed to conduct research combining engineering with agricultural applications to develop pathogen detection systems and embryo health monitoring devices aimed at advancing national biosecurity and agricultural productivity.
Field: biomedical/electrical engineering (agricultural biosecurity research) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we disagree with and will therefore withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record supports SCOPS' determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or how it otherwise shows success or progress”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that his work has been cited by others”
“he has not demonstrated a record of success with respect to his research”
“it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or how it otherwise shows success or progress”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the document does not appear to be a 'provisional patent' but rather a confirmation number issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark's Office”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that his work has been cited by others”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“It is unclear how the Petitioner's prior experience in the research and development sector of electrical engineering will render him well positioned”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained how such membership renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner ... was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects”
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
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- 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 reversed SCOPS on prong 1 (national importance) but still dismissed the appeal on prong 2 as an independent and alternate basis, expressly declining to reach prong 3. Notably scrutinized a 'provisional patent' claim, finding it was merely a USPTO filing-receipt confirmation number filed after the petition's filing date.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Katigbak
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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