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 sought to work as a postdoctoral researcher continuing research on drug-resistant tuberculosis, HIV, and COVID-19 to help develop safe, effective oral treatment regimens and inform pandemic/epidemic preparedness.
Field: public health / infectious disease research (drug-resistant TB, HIV, COVID-19) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS found the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, but AAO noted the record lacks evidence of a doctorate despite the postdoctoral endeavor requiring one; AAO expressly reserved its opinion on underlying EB-2 eligibility since the waiver issue was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he has not provided sufficient evidence that he has the necessary education, specifically a doctoral degree, to qualify him as a postdoctoral researcher”
“they do not provide sufficient details to demonstrate how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record of success beyond having been cited by others”
“the record does not contain evidence related to obtaining this postdoctoral position, such as a job offer letter”
“the record does not establish the parameters of these grant awards or show whether the Petitioner applied for and received this funding for his research”
“this alone is insufficient to substantiate a claim of impact to the field and a finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned for his endeavor”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets the second prong of Dhanasar of being well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide sufficient details to demonstrate how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“this alone is insufficient to substantiate a claim of impact to the field and a finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he has not corroborated his claims with supporting documents such as his diploma and official academic transcripts”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not establish the parameters of these grant awards or show whether the Petitioner applied for and received this funding”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“aside from the Petitioner's own statements, the record does not contain evidence related to obtaining this postdoctoral position”
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
Notable
AAO found prong 1 satisfied (a rarer outcome favorable to petitioner) but dismissed solely on prong 2, expressly declining to reach prong 3 or resolve threshold EB-2 doctorate/degree-corroboration issues raised sua sponte in a footnote. AAO also rebutted the Petitioner's argument that citation count alone satisfies prong 2, and addressed a claimed 'secured postdoctoral position' asserted for the first time on appeal without supporting evidence.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of E-M-
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