dismissedJUL102024_01B52032024-07-10 · 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 data programmer analyst/data scientist employed at a children's hospital, proposed to continue similar work in health informatics using data science to improve pediatric chronic disease management, with long-term plans to develop AI-based mobile health applications and pursue a doctorate.
Field: health informatics / data science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record indicates the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he still does not provide any further detail about the proposed endeavor or clarify where he does intend to work.”
“the impact of such work would likely be limited to his employer and to patients at that hospital.”
“The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or provided data or evidence to demonstrate the projected U.S. economic impact of his specific proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner does not provide evidence showing citation rates for other articles in the field to demonstrate that the citations of his work exceed the norm for his field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the writers discuss the Petitioner's past education, research, and work projects but do not specifically address his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“does not provide evidence showing citation rates for other articles in the field to demonstrate that the citations of his work exceed the norm”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this information does not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects.”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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