dismissedJAN142026_04B52032026-01-14 · 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 proposes to develop advanced power grid optimization methods to enhance renewable energy integration, mitigate grid violations, and optimize algorithms for Power Electronic Power Distribution Systems, including research on transmission line overload mitigation and power systems stability.
Field: electrical engineering / power systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (doctoral degree in Electrical Engineering). Threshold EB-2 was not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“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.”
“We withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.”
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 Petitioner has not shown that this level of interest in his work or his record of success in research is sufficient to demonstrate he is well positioned.”
“the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the larger field of engineering does not sufficiently establish the level of his success or impact in the field of power engineering.”
“the articles in the record cite to his work as an example of research done in the field or in their introduction section as part of an overview of current research, but none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates he is well positioned”
“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 include supporting evidence showing the significance of these two patents.”
“The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in power engineering rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that his power engineering contributions supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply inherent in the labor certification process.”
“The evidence in the aggregate, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that a national interest waiver outweighs the benefits inherent to the labor certification process.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
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
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the larger field of engineering does not sufficiently establish the level of his success or impact”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not by itself demonstrate that the inventor is well positioned to advance their endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 8 evidence items
- other · discounted
“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 - resume experience · discounted
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
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
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
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 partially reversed SCOPS, finding prong 1 (national importance) met — a relatively uncommon outcome — while still dismissing on prongs 2 and 3. The decision contains a detailed bibliometric analysis, including critique of Google Scholar as a basis for research evaluation and the inapplicability of cross-field citation percentile comparisons (engineering broadly vs. power engineering specifically). Both prong 2 and prong 3 failures are stated as independent and alternate bases for dismissal.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Decisive factor
Prong 1 was met, but citations, high journal rankings, two patents, and peer review did not show his specific findings were used or influential; he failed to prove a record of success (prong 2) and prong 3.
Transferable lesson
Passing national importance is not enough; for well-positioned, show your findings were used or influential; journal rankings, raw citation counts, and patents alone do not prove a record of success.
Endeavor framing
specific
National-importance theory
field_advancement · critical_emerging_tech
Evidence targeting
person_focused
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