dismissedDEC112025_01B52032025-12-11 · 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 PhD candidate in chemical and biomolecular engineering, proposed to continue as a postdoctoral researcher studying molecular pathways and biomarkers in colorectal cancer, aiming to advance early cancer detection and therapeutic strategies.
Field: biomedical science / chemical and biomolecular engineering (colorectal cancer research) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with SCOPS that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his master's degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed colorectal cancer research in the United States, the Petitioner has not shown that his plan for future activities renders him well positioned”
“he has not demonstrated that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed colorectal cancer research”
“the letters do not detail how the Petitioner's research findings have had an impact in the biomedical science field, assist others in the field, or otherwise reflect a record of success”
“the record does not indicate the significance of the Petitioner's role in the research which he coauthored with 15 others or that his work on the research influenced his field”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner, rather than another coauthor, was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research project”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not detail how the Petitioner's research findings have had an impact in the biomedical science field, assist others in the field, or otherwise reflect a record of success or progress”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not indicate the significance of the Petitioner's role in the research which he coauthored with 15 others or that his work on the research influenced his field”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner, rather than another coauthor, was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research project”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he has not shown how being an AACR member demonstrates a record of success in his field, generation of interest of his endeavor among others in his field, or otherwise being well positioned”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“such degree in and of itself is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · 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
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
- 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
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,312coded 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 expressly withdrew SCOPS' negative prong-1 finding, holding national importance was satisfied, but affirmed denial on prong 2. AAO also acknowledged SCOPS erred by requiring the Petitioner show he was an 'acclaimed researcher... at the top of his field,' a non-Dhanasar factor, but deemed this harmless error under Matter of O-R-E-.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- 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