dismissedJUL022025_01B52032025-07-02 · appeal
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 applied linguist, proposed to continue research collecting and analyzing discourse data and cultural narratives using critical discourse analysis and related linguistic frameworks to illuminate the experiences of marginalized populations.
Field: applied linguistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately detail how providing his services as a linguist would have such broader impact in the industry that it rises to the level of national importance.”
“While these accomplishments show that the Petitioner is active in academic discourse, the quantity and impact of the citations do not, in this case, rise to the level of national influence.”
“the letter does not offer specific details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals or how any impact would have broader implications.”
“The Petitioner has not offered sufficient, specific evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact directly attributable to his future work.”
“Without adequate evidence demonstrating any specific U.S. economic impact, job creation, or other significant economic activity directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner's claims that his endeavor will provide substantial, direct positive economic effects is unpersuasive.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the quantity and impact of the citations do not, in this case, rise to the level of national influence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“opinions and support letters provide little probative evidence of the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 →
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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