dismissedDEC142022_01B52032022-12-14 · appeal · 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 plant researcher, proposed to continue research into plant propagation, an area with applications to food security, pharmaceuticals, and the environment.

Field: plant propagation research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he provided little information about his specific proposed endeavor”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

“The Petitioner has not established how his research adds information to the pool of knowledge already available in this area.”

AAO decision text

recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

1,581coded 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 →

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.