NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN272021_05B52032021-01-27 · appeal · Nebraska 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, an electrical engineer with a Ph.D., proposed to continue research on optimizing computer network caching, traffic engineering, and related algorithms to improve network performance and content delivery.

Field: electrical engineering / computer networking (caching, traffic engineering, network optimization) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“he did not provide specific examples indicating that these models have been implemented in the digital communications industry or otherwise constitute a record of success in the field.”
“he does not offer examples of how the Petitioner's algorithm has been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the digital communications industry.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
“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 show that the Petitioner (rather than... ) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research project.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he did not provide specific examples indicating that these models have been implemented in the digital communications industry”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not demonstrated the significance of his innovation in the field.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not show that the Petitioner ... was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research project.”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • resume experience · discounted
    “he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research.”
    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
  • 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 withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner failed to submit Form ETA-750B, but still dismissed on prong 2. Decision states 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision' even though only prong 2 was actually analyzed and found dispositive, and prong 3 was expressly not reached.

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)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer