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 proposes to conduct research in the United States on high-performance semiconductor packaging and chip-level security technologies, including glass-based interposers, Antenna-in-Package mmWave RF integration, and Physical Unclonable Function hardware security, in support of semiconductor reshoring and critical infrastructure protection.
Field: semiconductor technology / electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS conceded and AAO confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering). Threshold EB-2 was not at issue.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“USCIS' discussion of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, however, did not identify or analyze any specific item of evidence in the record.”
“USCIS' broad statements concerning the record did not sufficiently identify specific deficiencies leading to its conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“USCIS concluded without analysis that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“this is only one factor of many to be considered under the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“USCIS' decision did not specifically address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence submitted at time of initial filing and in response to USCIS' request for evidence.”
“Without a proper evaluation of the Petitioner's evidence relating to the factors identified in Dhanasar's third prong, we cannot properly assess whether USCIS' determination for this prong was in error.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- patents · credited
- funding · credited
- citations publications · credited
- other · credited
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
This is a pure procedural remand: the AAO found that USCIS failed to engage with the specific evidence on all three Dhanasar prongs, issuing only generalized statements without identifying particular deficiencies. The AAO did not itself adjudicate any prong on the merits. USCIS had actually found prong 2 satisfied (concluded without analysis that petitioner is well positioned) but failed prongs 1 and 3; the AAO remanded all three for proper analysis. The decision also notes the STEM/Ph.D. positive factor under prong 2 per USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4). The petitioner was employed as a Senior Researcher in South Korea at time of filing.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
USCIS's denial made only generalized, conclusory statements across all three Dhanasar prongs without identifying or analyzing specific record evidence, violating the requirement for a fully explained, reviewable decision.
If USCIS denial is conclusory and ignores submitted evidence, appeal on procedural grounds (failure to explain) can secure remand even without a merits win.
specific
critical_emerging_tech · national_security · us_competitiveness
mixed
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