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 continue working as a mechanical and aerospace engineer in the United States, focusing on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) research to further understanding in the field through multi-disciplinary applications.
Field: mechanical and aerospace engineering (computational fluid dynamics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed CFD research.”
“the writers of the recommendation letters submitted in support of the petition did not provide adequate context of the significance of the Petitioner's solutions or techniques”
“the Petitioner did not offer comparative statistics showing the significance of this level of citation within his field.”
“he does not describe the current practical application of the Petitioner's 2013 methodology in ongoing wind turbine development initiatives”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“did not provide adequate context of the significance of the Petitioner's solutions or techniques”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“did not offer comparative statistics showing the significance of this level of citation within his field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Resubmitting previously provided evidence or reasserting previously stated facts do not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not adequately demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
This is a combined motion to reconsider/reopen following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO expressly declined to reach prong 3 (as in the original appeal) since prong 2 remained dispositive. New evidence on motion (a 2021 reference letter citing the petitioner's work) was found insufficient to constitute a 'new fact' warranting reopening, as it merely elaborated on citation evidence already considered and rejected.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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