dismissedJAN072026_06B52032026-01-07 · appeal · SCOPS 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, a hematology-oncology fellow, proposed to conduct research on the interplay of comorbidities affecting cancer outcomes and to design targeted interventions for improving care of medically complex cancer patients in the United States.

Field: hematology-oncology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found and AAO agreed that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (MBBS from India, 2018).

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she has established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

“the record does not establish that her clinical work and instructional duties would impact the field of cancer research or U.S. public health more broadly”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve treatment strategies or public health approaches.”

“Dr. K-N- does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected cancer treatments, improved therapeutic effectiveness, or otherwise shows success or progress”

“the Petitioner has not shown that the level of interest in her findings or her record of success is sufficient to demonstrate she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor.”

“the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of clinical medicine and compares her citation frequency in hematology and oncology to that of the larger field”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”

“the Petitioner was allotted only 'a 0.5 day of protected time for research each week.'”

“she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve treatment strategies or public health approaches.”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of clinical medicine and compares her citation frequency in hematology and oncology to that of the larger field”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
AAO decision text

All 9 evidence items

certification membership · discounted
“she has not demonstrated that her membership in the GBD Collaborator Network rises to the level of rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“She has not demonstrated, however, that the level and frequency of her participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the majority of her duties involve 'direct patient care' and not hematology-oncology research.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record does not indicate that their methods have been accepted and implemented by the academic community.”
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 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

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 AAO noted that the Petitioner was listed as one of more than one thousand coauthors on her most-cited paper (767 citations) and did not demonstrate she was a significant contributor relative to the numerous other coauthors. The AAO also cited a scientometrics article submitted by the Petitioner against her, noting its authors advise against using Google Scholar for bibliometric analysis and recommend excluding self-citations. The employer letter confirming only 0.5 days per week of protected research time was a notable factual finding weighing against prong 2.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prong 2: letters and citation/funding evidence did not show a record of success or progress specific to her (versus coauthors), and new job allots only 0.5 day/week for research.

Transferable lesson

For prong 2, show petitioner's own distinctive role in funding, authorship, and concrete adoption/use of findings—not just citation counts or coauthor credit on large studies.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

public_health · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer