dismissedFEB222022_03B52032022-02-22 · motion_reopen · Texas 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 proposed a research endeavor related to the chemical industry, with prior AAO decisions having accepted its substantial merit and national importance but finding him not well positioned to advance it.
Field: chemical industry / chemistry research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the hundreds of other papers referenced in the articles”
“do not mention or credit the Petitioner's research, showing that it has somehow impacted the chemical industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the number of citations received by his articles or the level of interest they generated is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established how the proffered position I) relates to his proposed endeavor or 2) sufficiently demonstrates that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“does not specify how many, if any, of the citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“do not mention or credit the Petitioner's research, showing that it has somehow impacted the chemical industry”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not include any job duties or additional information about the position”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided any new evidence on motion to overcome our prior conclusions”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
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 Petitioner argued the AAO must compare his impact one-to-one with the petitioner in Matter of Dhanasar; the AAO rejected this as unsupported by any legal authority and clarified that a motion to reopen cannot raise legal-application errors, which require a motion to reconsider.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Poursina v. USCIS
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