dismissedJUL202021_07B52032021-07-20 · appeal · Nebraska 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 chemist with a PhD in medicinal chemistry working as a 'Key Chemist' for a pharmaceutical-related employer, proposed to continue research in drug development, including method development, high-throughput screening, and improving drug synthesis techniques.

Field: medicinal/pharmaceutical chemistry, drug development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has yet to identify her specific proposed endeavor.”

“we do not know what specific benefits she anticipates her research will produce.”

“We do not know, for instance, what specific research areas the Petitioner intends to focus on within the field of drug development, what her planned projects are”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong”

“neither offered evidence to substantiate the existence of the approach, whether others use the approach, or how it has impacted the field of drug development”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the letters provided information on the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner provided significant information concerning her past work... but little information concerning the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

2,501coded 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

The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B that she would submit a brief and evidence within 30 days but never did, so the AAO relied solely on the appeal form's brief statement. The AAO also noted in a footnote that the Petitioner selected an SOC code corresponding to 'Biologists' rather than 'Chemists' or 'Biochemists and Biophysicists,' which more closely matched her job title and academic field, though this discrepancy was not made a basis for denial.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
INA 203(b)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer