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 lecturer and research associate at a U.S. university, proposes to develop strategic AI methodologies for healthcare, medical imaging analysis, and weather forecasting using deep learning and remote sensing, in order to improve patient outcomes and disaster preparedness.
Field: cognitive artificial intelligence / computer science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO both agreed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his doctorate in computer science.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has consistent research funding or interest from government agencies to independently pursue his proposed endeavor”
“the evidence provided shows that Dr. M.H. submitted a successful proposal for funding, which has been given, and that the Petitioner is an employee”
“Many of the citations appear to come from only a handful of researchers, which does not establish the level of impact or interest in the Petitioner's research endeavor”
“the cited statistics concern the field of 'computer science,' which is distinct from his particular field of cognitive AI”
“it is unclear what the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would look like independent of his position”
“while the Petitioner's Ph.D. in a STEM field is a favorable factor, as is his record of scholarly publications and current employment ... these factors alone are not sufficient”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
- citations publications · discounted
“Many of the citations appear to come from only a handful of researchers, which does not establish the level of impact or interest”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the evidence provided does not show that the Petitioner's research is funded through these U.S. government entities”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“letters of recommendation attesting to his 'scientific skill set and research endeavors,' 'notable citations' of his published research”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the letter provided is undated and appears to postdate the filing of the petition because it was submitted with his RFE response”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the statistics are quantitative in nature and do not reveal the reasons for the citations, which would involve a qualitative analysis”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO drew an explicit comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's own facts (three advanced degrees, significant national security implications, consistent government funding, key role in projects) to highlight what the present Petitioner lacked. The AAO also declined to consider an offer letter from a company called Ardent because it was undated and appeared to postdate the petition filing. The AAO flagged an internal ambiguity in the Petitioner's own statements — simultaneously claiming his endeavor is 'distinct from' his employment position while also calling that position his 'chief opportunity' to pursue it — and used this to undercut the independence of his proposed endeavor.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong two: no independent government funding or key-personnel role shown—research funding and grant belonged to his supervisor/employer, not him, undermining 'well-positioned' claim.
Show personal, independent ownership of funding, grants, or research role—not just employment within a funded lab—to prove you are well-positioned to advance the endeavor.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · public_health · field_advancement
person_focused
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