dismissedJAN122026_02B52032026-01-12 · appeal

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 senior data analyst, proposed to develop advanced statistical and machine learning/AI models to identify diabetic patients at risk of HbA1c deterioration and to implement remote patient monitoring solutions to improve diabetes care.

Field: healthcare data analysis / machine learning · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“However, a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner did not show how his limited publication or presentation history represents a level of his success in the field”

“the letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”

“The lack of specificity in the letters does not show how his work has affected the field or industry demonstrating a history of accomplishment”

“the Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated his past work has served as an impetus for progress in the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“did not show how his limited publication or presentation history represents a level of his success in the field”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”
AAO decision text
awards · ignored
“the Petitioner received the award after the filing of the initial filing and will not be considered”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted

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
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 decided the appeal solely on prong 2 (well positioned), declining to reach prongs 1 and 3 as unnecessary per INS v. Bagamasbad, yet the conclusion paragraph inconsistently states 'the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong' despite the analysis being entirely about the second prong—an apparent drafting error in the decision itself.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Flores v. Garland
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

No endeavor was stated until the RFE; two master's degrees but only two articles and two conferences, no shown field impact, and letters that recited the Dhanasar standard without showing how he is positioned.

Transferable lesson

Letters that recite the Dhanasar standard, "well positioned," without showing how do not satisfy prong two; an award received after filing does not count.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

public_health · critical_emerging_tech

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer