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 AI researcher with a bachelor's degree in computer science, conducted machine-learning research including analysis of emoji usage in relation to social media engagement and market trends, and breast-cancer histopathology classification using vision transformer models.
Field: artificial intelligence / computer science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability; he met the academic record and membership criteria but failed to show recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the AI field via letters, citations, journal ranking, or peer review service. A footnote also found he abandoned any claim to advanced-degree-professional status because he lacked the requisite five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience and did not argue this on appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's findings have been utilized in the AI field”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- certification membership · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“he has not demonstrated that this instance of participation in the widespread peer review process shows recognition for achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO found the exceptional-ability threshold determination dispositive and expressly reserved the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for not needing to reach unnecessary issues. It also deemed the advanced-degree-professional argument abandoned because the appeal brief did not raise it, relying on a district court decision (Hristov v. Roark) for that abandonment doctrine. The decision contains an unusually detailed bibliometric discussion, including reliance on a Scientometrics methodology article to reject Google Scholar citation counts as a basis for showing field-level recognition.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(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