dismissedJUL032025_02B52032025-07-03 · 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, a professor and researcher, proposed to integrate and study the impacts of social media, machine learning, IoT, AI, and other emerging technologies on psychosocial, economic, and political areas, later refining this to focus on addressing challenges faced by underserved and minority groups in the U.S.

Field: information systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“we disagree and withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong.”

“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“citation metrics alone are not determinative of the Petitioner's ability to advance the proposed endeavor in the future.”

“the record lacks evidence that the Petitioner's work has resulted in real-world applications, influenced academic or industry practices, or led to significant policy developments.”

“The letters also lack sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's research has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts.”

“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of an employer offer from any university, nor evidence of funding for or availability of such a position.”

“the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

citations publications · discounted
“citation metrics alone are not determinative of the Petitioner's ability to advance the proposed endeavor in the future.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide evidence of the practical implementation or real-world application of the Petitioner's research.”
AAO decision text
degree · credited
business plan · discounted
“The fact that the Petitioner does not currently have such a position weighs against demonstrating either a specific model or plan for future activities or progress toward achieving the endeavor.”
AAO decision text
funding · discounted
“he has not provided documentary evidence of pursuing this employment or any specific steps taken toward achieving employment.”
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

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 explicitly withdrew SCOPS' negative finding on prong 1 (finding national importance established) but reversed SCOPS' favorable finding on prong 2, ultimately dismissing on a prong SCOPS had actually found satisfied. AAO reserved prong 3 entirely. Petitioner's shift from original to RFE-revised endeavor description was extensively analyzed.

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
Buletini v. INS
Flores v. Garland
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer