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 transportation engineer, proposes to continue research using machine learning, data-driven methods, and spatial analysis to identify and mitigate crash risk factors, enhance road safety, reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities, and improve transportation mobility in the United States.
Field: transportation engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS concluded the Petitioner meets EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“SCOPS determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.”
“SCOPS misidentified the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and his field of work and did not discuss the evidence in the record or explain the reasons for their conclusion.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“SCOPS did not provide a sufficient explanation for concluding that the record did not establish 'substantial positive economic effects' as they did not apply the Dhanasar framework to the relevant facts of this petition.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate his assertion that the prospective impact of continuing his work as a systems engineer consultant”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“has not offered sufficient information and evidence to illustrate the number of individuals his business plans to hire, train and support”
AAO decision text - other · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Remand granted because SCOPS fundamentally misidentified the Petitioner's field and endeavor — characterizing a transportation engineering researcher as a 'systems engineer consultant in the field of information technology and software development' — and applied an inapposite business/entrepreneur analysis (hiring, pay, job creation) to a researcher who is not an entrepreneur. SCOPS also conceded substantial merit and well-positioned (prongs 1 partial and 2), leaving only national importance (part of prong 1) and prong 3 for remand. The AAO found the decision insufficient for meaningful appellate review under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i) and Matter of M-P-. On appeal, Petitioner submitted a new offer letter as Associate Research Fellow, which the AAO noted but did not evaluate.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS misidentified the petitioner as an IT systems engineer/entrepreneur and applied a job-creation analysis to a transportation-safety researcher, without analyzing the record; AAO held these misrepresentations required remand.
Ensure the decision engages your actual field and endeavor; if the officer applies the wrong framework (a business/job-creation test to a researcher), that misapplication is remandable.
specific
field_advancement · public_health
mixed
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