remandedJAN212025_10B52032025-01-21 · appeal · Texas 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 civil engineer, sought to pursue a postdoctoral researcher position in the United States, expressing particular interest in the University of South Carolina.

Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional was withdrawn because the translation of his master's diploma and transcript lacked the required certification that the translator was competent to translate from the foreign language into English, making it impossible to meaningfully assess the degree claim.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish whether his education supports his claim to be well positioned”

“he has not provided any evidence that he has any interest from the University of South Carolina or any other institutions”

“he has not presented evidence of discussions regarding his potential future employment, or any other significant evidence of progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor”

“he has not presented any evidence showing he has support, such as research funding, from relevant entities claiming interest in his work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“we are unable to meaningfully determine whether the documents support the claim”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“he has not provided any evidence that he has any interest from the University of South Carolina or any other institutions”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“he has not presented any evidence showing he has support, such as research funding, from relevant entities claiming interest in his work”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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
No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing

1,312coded 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

Unusual procedural posture: the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 finding due to a defective translation certification (not a substantive degree deficiency), and found prong two (well-positioned) dispositive and unmet even though the Director had denied on prongs one and three; the AAO expressly declined to reach prongs one and three and remanded for the Director to address them if still relevant.

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)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Improperly certified translation of the petitioner's foreign degree undermined proof of advanced-degree eligibility, and lack of evidence (no offer, funding, or institutional interest) showed he was not well-positioned to pursue the vague postdoctoral endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Submit properly certified translations for foreign credentials and provide concrete, documented progress (offers, funding, institutional interest) toward a clearly defined endeavor, not just credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer