dismissedJAN282026_05B52032026-01-28 · 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 proposed to develop and apply novel bioinformatics algorithms and AI-based predictive models to study genetic inheritances, early disease detection, and precision medicine, including projects on rare disease diagnosis, a virtual doctor assistant, and spatial-temporal analysis of immune-tumor cell interactions in breast cancer tissues.
Field: machine learning / bioinformatics / computational biosciences · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO both agreed the petitioner established an advanced degree (Ph.D. in quantitative and computational biosciences) and qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail or documentation to support his claims that these projects would have the potential to extend beyond his employer and broadly impact the field of bioinformatics”
“he does not discuss when or where he will perform this research or how he will obtain the necessary equipment and specimens to perform the research, including breast cancer tissue.”
“the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor will have broader implications in the field, or substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the articles the Petitioner submitted as notable citations to his studies only list the Petitioner's work in string citations with other studies, at most noting the Petitioner's study in a sentence or two without more discussion.”
“The letters, without corroboration, are therefore not sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner does not provide a plan as to how he intends to continue his research in these two areas or in his larger proposed endeavor.”
“He did not include evidence of prospective or potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities reflecting feasible plans for financial support”
“he does not provide context for how being cited 99 times equates to a record of success or progress in achieving his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not provide details of how the Petitioner's contributions have been significant, such as specific examples of how the Petitioner's use of novel tools has impacted the field”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide evidence to corroborate why he was selected as a peer reviewer, he does not explain how his review work relates to his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner does not provide a plan as to how he intends to continue his research in these two areas or in his larger proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- funding · discounted
“the record evidences that one of the Petitioner's co-authors in one of his studies was funded by the NIH, not the Petitioner.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“his submission of an online write-up discussing the findings of the study, and a published paper citing to his study do not support his statement that his findings have been widely adopted.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
746coded 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
The AAO found substantial merit under prong 1 but denied national importance, making p1 a partial failure. Two of the petitioner's three proposed projects were tied to his private employer, raising concerns about proprietary research and employer authorization for use of company AI tools — an employer_specific_benefit analysis applied at the p1 national-importance stage. The petitioner incorrectly claimed NIH funding that actually belonged to a co-author. The petitioner cited Buletini v. INS to argue abuse of discretion, which the AAO rejected. The AAO also noted the absence of patents, trademarks, copyrights, or media coverage as corroborating evidence under p2.
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