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.
Petitioner, a petroleum engineer working as an evaluation and planning professional in data analytics for an oil and gas company, sought to continue petroleum engineering/data science work and independent research on carbon sequestration in deep saline aquifers.
Field: petroleum engineering / carbon sequestration research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's simulation method has generated positive interest among relevant parties”
“the record does not include sufficient evid~nce that this work constitutes a record of success or otherwise shows that he is well positioned to advance his proposed research”
“the record does not show the funding that ... or any other organization has devoted to the Petitioner's research projects”
“these downloads of the Petitioner's two articles ... are not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has been influential among petroleum engineering researchers”
“the record does not document that his paper and abstract were actually presented at the aforementioned conference and workshop”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's simulation method has generated positive interest among relevant parties”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has been influential among petroleum engineering researchers”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“this evidence post-dates the filing of the petition and therefore does not show his eligibility under the second prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not otherwise show how this position renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“not relevant to determining whether the Petitioner satisfies the requirements set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework”
AAO decision text
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 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
Notable
Petitioner argued AAO 'massively and incorrectly overestimated' the government interest in the Dhanasar precedent petitioner's research by comparing employer/university revenue and government funding figures; AAO rejected this comparison as misapplying the second-prong analysis, which focuses on the individual rather than employer revenue. Petitioner also raised family hardship and Nigeria country conditions, which AAO found irrelevant to the Dhanasar framework.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod