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 chemical engineer with a doctorate in systems engineering, proposed to conduct research in environmental cleanup (wastewater treatment using microalgae), public health (protein therapeutics, nutraceuticals, dental hygiene products), and related commercialization activities, while also pursuing research fellowships at NASA or NSF.
Field: chemical engineering / systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; threshold EB-2 was not at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The Petitioner has not described a single coherent endeavor that would encompass all these disparate activities.”
“Using an umbrella term such as 'chemical engineering' does not unify these diverse activities into a coherent proposed endeavor.”
“An array of disparate possibilities does not collectively constitute a proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not shown that he continued to perform NASA-funded research after he received his Ph.D. in May 2023.”
“An intention to seek grant funding in the future, from third parties that have not attested to their intention to provide that funding, is not persuasive evidence.”
“The record identifies several potential goals for the Petitioner's future work, but does not show that the Petitioner is well positioned to attain those goals.”
“This vague and disparate range of possibilities does not lead us to conclude that the Petitioner has articulated a model or plan for future activities.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner has described multiple potential endeavors... he has not met his burden to establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“each letter describes a different potential collaboration, and even then many of these letters indicate that their projects are contingent on third-party funding that has not been secured.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The Petitioner's cited work dates from his now-completed graduate studies... has not shown that he has since received research funding or been employed... in a research position.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown that he played a significant role in securing that funding.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The contract does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to work in 'customized product development'.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“Also, these newly obtained letters do not establish that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor when he filed the petition in December 2023.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Notable
The AAO placed significant emphasis on the Petitioner's failure to articulate a single coherent proposed endeavor, treating the vagueness and internal inconsistency of the endeavor description as independently fatal to both prong 1 and prong 2. SCOPS had actually conceded substantial merit but denied on national importance and prong 2; the AAO affirmed both failures. The AAO also applied 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) to discount new facts introduced in the RFE response (including letters of interest from companies, one of which did not exist until early 2025). The Petitioner's 262 total citations (68 for top article) were acknowledged but deemed insufficient given lack of ongoing research employment post-PhD. Prong 3 was expressly reserved under INS v. Bagamasbad.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to articulate one coherent proposed endeavor, instead listing shifting, disparate jobs/projects, precluding findings on national importance and positioning.
Define one specific, stable endeavor at filing and maintain it consistently; do not introduce new or additional pursuits in RFE responses.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · stem_positive_factor
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