dismissedFEB042026_04B52032026-02-04 · appeal · SCOPS 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 Ph.D. student, proposed to develop methods to investigate environmental, molecular, and genetic mechanisms of diseases—particularly cancer—with the goal of enhancing clinical treatment and improving patient outcomes by transitioning findings from basic biomedical science to clinical applications.

Field: cancer biology and disease etiology (molecular and genetic mechanisms of disease) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found and AAO affirmed that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (master's degree in Stomatological Medicine, 2022).

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she has established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown that this level of interest in her work or her record of success in research is sufficient to demonstrate she is well positioned.”

“she did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected cancer treatments, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within Molecular Biology & Genetics, including cancer biology or disease etiology.”

“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”

“none highlight or comment upon her research in a way that demonstrates she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”

“the Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence showing the significance of this patent.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve pollutant exposure mitigation strategies.”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within Molecular Biology & Genetics.”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“A degree in and of itself, however, is not a sufficient basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
patents · discounted
“While a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not by itself demonstrate that the inventor is well positioned to advance their endeavor.”
AAO decision text

All 8 evidence items

funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“She has not demonstrated, however, that the level and frequency of her participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed research.”
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 AAO reversed SCOPS on prong 1 (national importance), finding it satisfied, but affirmed denial on prong 2. The decision includes a notable critique of the Petitioner's bibliometric methodology: she compared her citation rates to the broader field of Molecular Biology & Genetics rather than her specific subfields (cancer biology, disease etiology), and the AAO also flagged that the bibliometric article she relied upon itself advises against using Google Scholar for bibliometric analysis. The AAO also noted that the Petitioner was one of 13 coauthors on her most-cited paper and did not demonstrate she was a lead contributor.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prong two: evidence of publications, citations, patent, funding, and peer review did not establish a record of success or progress showing she is well positioned to advance the endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Support letters and metrics must specifically show measurable field impact and personal contribution (not just credentials/citations in a broader field) to prove well-positioned status.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

public_health · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer