dismissedDEC182025_06B52032025-12-18 · 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, an IC packaging engineer, proposed to develop computer-aided design (CAD) tools for integrated circuit packaging design—specifically automation/design-rule-checking tools and multi-physics simulation integration—to enhance digital and communication IC development across sectors like telecommunications, cloud computing, and defense.

Field: electrical engineering / IC packaging design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the letters make broad claims, such as his "research has a significant real-world impact"”

“The letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field.”

“the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his published articles and conference papers reflect a level of interest in his work”

“the record does not contain copies of the research grants showing the Petitioner as a named grant recipient”

“the Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated his published work has served as an impetus for progress in the field”

“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

“Nor does the evidence otherwise show his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing his research.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field.”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his published articles and conference papers reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“the record does not contain copies of the research grants showing the Petitioner as a named grant recipient”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The record does not reflect [employer] support for the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor rather than a broadly asserted letter.”
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

The decision resolves the case entirely on Dhanasar prong 2 (well-positioned) and explicitly declines to reach prongs 1 and 3, yet the concluding paragraph inconsistently states 'the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework,' an apparent drafting error given the body's focus on the second prong. The AAO also discounted an employer support letter for lacking letterhead and contact information, finding it lacked probative value.

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
Flores v. Garland
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer