dismissedFEB022026_04B52032026-02-02 · 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 proposes to develop state-of-the-art machine learning approaches for building safe, fair, and privacy-preserving intelligent algorithms for autonomous systems and recommendation systems, with applications in public safety, healthcare, and e-commerce, disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Field: machine learning / artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering); AAO did not disturb this finding.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research endeavor, and thus has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

“to the extent that the Petitioner's endeavor involves his employment as a machine learning engineer at [redacted], we do not agree that this work is of national importance, as the record does not show that the benefits of this work would result in broader implications beyond the benefits to his employer.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's research has been implemented or has influenced his field beyond being referenced or relied upon by others in their research publications.”

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

“the letters do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's work has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts.”

“he has not provided evidence of progress toward achieving the specific goals of his proposed endeavor or a detailed plan outlining how future research activities will be carried out.”

“the record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing these funds, including whether he was the primary award recipient or principal investigator.”

“the Petitioner's proposed research activities appear to directly overlap with his job responsibilities at [redacted].”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
citations publications · discounted
“citation metrics alone are not determinative of his ability to advance the proposed research endeavor in the future.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“they, collectively, do not sufficiently explain the specific nature of the Petitioner's proposed research endeavor and how he is well positioned to advance it, particularly independently of his job duties.”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“the record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing these funds, including whether he was the primary award recipient or principal investigator.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“he has not provided a sufficient explanation of how he will independently carry out his proposed research activities apart from his role at [redacted].”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

other · discounted
“citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
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
Employer-specific benefit · p2 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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 AAO reversed SCOPS on both prong 1 (national importance) and prong 2 (well positioned), finding for the petitioner on prong 1 but against on prong 2, making prong 2 the sole dispositive failure. The AAO explicitly credited the petitioner's Ph.D. in a STEM/critical-emerging-technology field as 'an especially positive factor' under prong 2 per Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), yet still found the overall record insufficient. The AAO also noted that employer-specific work (at the petitioner's ML engineering job) does not rise to national importance under prong 1, drawing an analogy to Dhanasar's teaching example. The overlap between the petitioner's proposed research endeavor and his commercial employment duties was a recurring concern across both prong 1 and prong 2 analyses.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prong 2: no evidence of independent progress, detailed plan, or ability to advance the endeavor apart from overlapping employer job duties and unverified funding role.

Transferable lesson

Show a concrete independent research plan, principal-investigator-level funding role, and impact distinct from employer duties—not just citations and generic support letters.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer