dismissedJAN282020_01B52032020-01-28 · 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 sought to conduct optical physics research on semiconductor design and fabrication, including computational lithography, machine learning applications in extreme ultraviolet lithography, and MRAM devices.
Field: optical physics / semiconductor design and fabrication · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that this theoretical physics work has been influential among physicists, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field”
“The Petitioner does not, however, offer comparative statistics showing the significance of this level of citation within his field.”
“the record does not show that he has published or presented any research in his field after 2011, so as to demonstrate continued progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor”
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not shown that his plan for future activities renders him well positioned”
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the optical physics field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that this theoretical physics work has been influential among physicists”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“does not offer comparative statistics showing the significance of this level of citation within his field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
- other · credited
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
271coded 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 affirmed prong 1 was satisfied but found prong 2 dispositive; the decision explicitly states the appeal is dismissed 'with each considered as an independent and alternate basis' despite only prong 2 being substantively analyzed as failed and prong 3 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.
- Poursina v. USCIS
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