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 robust adaptive autonomous decision-making algorithms for robotic systems operating under resource constraints in unknown environments, with applications in industrial automation, space exploration, logistics, and defense.
Field: aerospace engineering / robotics and autonomous systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO affirmed that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a master's degree in aerospace engineering.
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.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record contains no evidence, such as letters of support from colleagues or superiors, corroborating his claims regarding his past or proposed research.”
“none of which received more than five citations according to the Petitioner's Google Scholar profile from June 2025 - automatically demonstrates his record of research success”
“the Petitioner's comparison of the citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the larger field of engineering does not sufficiently establish his level of success or impact in the field of robotics.”
“the Petitioner did not provide a letter from the stated employer to corroborate these claims or verify the Petitioner's position and duties with the listed employer.”
“a degree in and of itself, is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his graduate work constitutes a record of success or progress in robotics and automation research rendering him well positioned”
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 contributions in robotics and automation supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply inherent in 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.”
“This statement indicates the Petitioner's intention to continue to conduct research while he is employed at [redacted]. This information undermines the Petitioner's arguments regarding 'the impracticality of obtaining labor certification.'”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide a letter from the stated employer to corroborate these claims or verify the Petitioner's position and duties”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“none of which received more than five citations according to the Petitioner's Google Scholar profile from June 2025”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of 'engineering' and compares his citation frequency in robotics to that of the larger field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner also provided no recommendation letters from colleagues or peers in the field indicating interest in his research.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“neither the Petitioner's personal statement nor informational materials about NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense ... serves as sufficient corroborating evidence to support his claim.”
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
- 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
Notable
The AAO partially reversed SCOPS, withdrawing the adverse finding on prong 1 (national importance) and affirming denial on prongs 2 and 3. The Petitioner had not yet earned a PhD at the time of filing (February 2025) but obtained one in May 2025; the AAO noted this post-filing credential could not establish eligibility at time of filing per 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), while still acknowledging its relevance as a positive factor. The AAO also noted the Petitioner's own statement that his research is 'in no way limited to any one employer or role' was used against him to undermine the impracticality-of-labor-certification argument under prong 3. The decision explicitly states both prong 2 and prong 3 failures are 'independent and alternate' bases for dismissal.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Prong 1 was met, but he offered no support or employer letters, low self-reported citations, no PhD at filing, and unproven NASA/DARPA funding; he failed well-positioned and, undercut by his own flexibility statement, the benefit prong.
Corroborate: submit expert and employer letters, prove the funding was yours, and establish eligibility at filing; claiming you are not tied to one employer can undercut the waiver's benefit prong.
specific
critical_emerging_tech · national_security · field_advancement
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