dismissedFEB262021_04B52032021-02-26 · appeal · Nebraska 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.
A PhD aerospace engineer proposed to continue research on aerodynamic and automatic control systems, including fluid dynamic performance and lift estimation models, for aircraft and maritime applications.
Field: aerospace/mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, we conclude that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and withdraw the Director's determination on this issue.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he did not provide specific examples indicating that this system has been utilized in military or civilian aircraft, or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field.”
“did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's airfoil testing methodology has been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the aerospace industry.”
“did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's has affected the aerospace industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than ) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
“As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“did not provide specific examples indicating that this system has been utilized in military or civilian aircraft, or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than [coauthor]) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the aerospace engineering field”
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 not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
271coded 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
AAO withdrew the Director's negative finding on prong 1 (finding it satisfied) but dismissed based on prong 2 alone, expressly noting prong 3 was not reached; extensive citation-analysis critique including skepticism of self-citations and non-contemporaneous Clarivate Analytics data.
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.
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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