dismissedJUL242020_02B52032020-07-24 · 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 mechanical engineering researcher with a PhD, proposed to continue research on nanoparticle transport mechanisms in biological organs, rock reservoirs, and chemical structures, including drug delivery devices and efficient chemical technologies for the oil and gas sector.
Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected production methods in the manufacturing industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success in his field.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong.”
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors or coauthors) was mainly responsible for obtaining fonding for their research projects.”
“the Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the mechanical engineering field”
“As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected production methods in the manufacturing industry”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors or coauthors) was mainly responsible for obtaining fonding”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated the significance or level of distinction of his awards in the field.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the mechanical engineering field”
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 not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 →
Notable
AAO explicitly rejects Petitioner's argument that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. Dhanasar himself, distinguishing that Dhanasar's second-prong finding rested on funding/role significance rather than citation counts. Decision is dismissed solely on prong 2 despite prong 1 being met, and declines to reach prong 3.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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