dismissedJAN082026_02B52032026-01-08 · 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 proposed to develop state-of-the-art deep learning and large language models (LLMs) to enhance automation in data analysis, information extraction, and virtual assistant technologies, including work on guardrails for harmful content, synthetic data generation, inference optimization, and hallucination reduction.

Field: artificial intelligence / machine learning (deep learning, large language models) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Master of Science in Engineering); AAO did not disturb this finding.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.”

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

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the industry.”

“The articles in the record cite to his work as an example of research done in the field, but none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in his field, he has not demonstrated his work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned.”

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

“while his master's degree renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned.”

“he has not demonstrated that his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the industry”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“cite to his work as an example of research done in the field, but none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates he is well positioned”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“That a conference publication bears a high ranking is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author.”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research project”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“his master's degree renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient”
AAO decision text

All 7 evidence items

other · discounted
“his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“he has conducted, published, and presented research during his graduate studies and while at [employer], but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned”
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

AAO reversed SCOPS on prong 1 (national importance), finding it satisfied, but affirmed denial on prong 2. The Petitioner made an unusual comparative argument that his citation record exceeded that of Dr. Dhanasar himself; the AAO explicitly rejected this, clarifying that the Dhanasar precedent decision's prong 2 finding rested on government funding and research leadership, not citation counts. The decision also includes a detailed footnote (fn. 6) explaining why exceptional ability or advanced degree alone cannot qualify a petitioner for a waiver.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The AAO conceded national importance but he failed prong two: citations of 17/10/5/4 were not shown high relative to the field, the funding was credited to his professors, and a master's alone showed no record of success.

Transferable lesson

National importance conceded still loses on well-positioned; citation counts without a field baseline, and funding credited to your professors, do not show a record of success.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer