dismissedJAN032022_01B52032022-01-03 · 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 mathematics lecturer and researcher sought to continue teaching and conducting applied mathematics research, including developing numerical simulations and computational methods for particle interaction problems.
Field: applied mathematics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to impact U.S. technological interests or the field of applied mathematics more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“the record does not demonstrate that his instructional activities offer benefits that extend beyond his university to impact the field of applied mathematics more broadly.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“they do not constitute evidence that his proposed research projects have national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters focus on the Petitioner's past research efforts rather than the national importance of the three projects.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,501coded 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 explicitly distinguishes citation evidence as relevant to prong 2 rather than prong 1, clarifying that petitioner conflated the two prongs by arguing citations establish national importance.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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