NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL062023_04B52032023-07-06 · 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, a machine learning researcher, proposed to build and design accurate algorithms to optimize system performance.

Field: machine learning / electrical and computer engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record or success beyond having been cited by others in their published works.”
“The Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his published articles and conference papers reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
“the record does not show the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining fonding for the research projects.”
“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated his published work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or it has generated substantial positive discourse in the industry.”
“these limited articles do not represent a level of his success in the field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by his published articles and conference papers reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not show the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining fonding for the research projects.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence of these claims.”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • certification membership · discounted
    “The Petitioner, however, did not explain the significance of his review experience”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • 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 distinguishes this case from Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting Dhanasar held multiple graduate degrees and was a named/primary grant recipient, whereas this petitioner lacked comparable documentation; AAO also clarifies that Dhanasar's own favorable determination was not based on his citation record.

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.

  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer